











Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/astobeingreformeOOkuip © 


AS TO BEING REFORMED 


i 
t 


Wy its 


7 Cd) is 
Bie ee 
: a 
5 ! 
ay \ 


vane 





AY OF PRINGE 
<n DN 





As To Being Reformed | 


f BY 
R. B.’KUIPER, A.M., B.D. 
Pastor of the 


Lagrave Avenue Ghristian Reformed Ghurch 
Grand Rapids, Michigan 


“Faith of our fathers, living still 

In spite of dungeon, fire, and sword, 
O, how our hearts beat high with joy, 
Whene’er we hear that glorious word: 
Faith of our fathers, holy faith! 

We will be true to thee till death’’. 


Wm. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING CO. 
208 Pearl Street 
Grand Rapids, Michigan 


Ad ees bf omen ) ff aemmces (3 Hemme if men ff toe He mem i i eae Bf i comes i oy ff ame iB ms fl eee 9 acme ff] a ff fe fi een Fears i emf pen Seman i eG eae | fj OG eae coms means fi bomen i i mom i If aoe tif aoa 


| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
: 
| 


Nyy 


aa 
s 


Marites 


C, by 


ely ae) 
Stalk 





TO MY WIFE ON THE FIFTEENTH 
ANNIVERSARY OF OUR WEDDING, 
AND TO MARIETTA AND KLAUDIUS, 
WHO, THEIR PARENTS PRAY, MAY 
GROW UP TO BE HUMBLE AND, AT 
ONCE, STURDY CALVINISTS 


HL Fy ie 
ae ces 
ia : rat 


EONAR ae 
Privat iy oy AY N my 
“e A OMY " 


we 
yet Oh i 
Vain)! 
Te pa 
¢ a 4 


; + wih : 


BENS 
Wasaes,( * 
' 





Chapter 


I. 
II. 
ITT. 


CONTENTS 


Page 
BECLACeoe ee) CON aT St 9 
My Experience in the Reformed 
CRUPCO AN AMERICA Oi ten a ie 15 
Is the Reformed Church in America 
ReELOrmMed Ferret A Ui hos ol 
Doctrinal Controversy in the Chris- 
tian Reformed Church.........00000.......... 43 
Perils Besetting the Christian Re- 
formediGhurchy eeu sen 7s. 
Modernism and Fundamentalism........ 76 
Christianity and Calvinism.................... 85 
The Doctrine of Absolute Predesti- 
THE RAE OS LYM Deu a tushy VEU VOM RN RONCRIN ASAI, Bc ODN 95 
The Importance of the Doctrine of 


Common Grace for the Church of 


PROC AYP Me ate ae eo Ce NY SLR Nc 109 
Pre-, Post-, and A-Millennialism.......... 123 
The Christian and the World................ 135 
Reformed reaching sue ON es A 149 
(HUIS AN DICHCALION ye uin CR: 163 
Cirrelr DISCipline nan eA ans 177 
AETV CO LMILISTO eile RN er abla ite EE 195 
Should the Reformed and the Chris- 

tian Reformed Churches Merge?...... 205 


Calvinism’s Glory and Present Oppor- 
POUL EV a ateo cea e ee ean kes AL UL See 


PUNTSIOTE TRATES EAN NEE ium DL ee MMS ate Me 233 


Ve 
a. « ; 

i " 
rye 4 


a 
1) 


; We Y i /; ; i My ‘ 
MAIO YR hae 


a! 


le LAE Fo hi ia Ad mi ; ay sat eS 


on a Hi Bee # 





PREFACE 


HE FOLLOWING PAGES are in effect an 

appeal to the members of the Reformed 
Church in America and the Christian Reformed 
Church to continue soundly Reformed or to 
become more so. 

The idea of making this appeal was conceived 
during my stay in the Reformed Church in 
America from the autumn of 1925 to the autumn 
of 1925. 

That brief period was rich in experiences, 
many of which were pleasant and some unpleas- 
ant, while all of them, I believe, were beneficial 
to me. 

I made several new acquaintances and even 
friends. My eyes were opened to many Chris- 
tian virtues in a denomination against which, I 
admit, I had been somewhat prejudiced. I think 
I grew more tolerant. My missionary zeal could 
hardly help being kindled. 

But I was especially deeply impressed by two 
things: THE IMMINENT PERIL IN WHICH 
WE AMERICAN CALVINISTS ARE OF LOSING 
OUR PRECIOUS REFORMED HERITAGE, AND 
THE SUPREME IMPORTANCE OF OUR HOLD- 
ING IT FAST. Hence this appeal. 

I am well aware that some members of the 
Christian Reformed Church thought less of me 
for leaving the denomination. In fact I was sur- 
prised at the many urgent invitations to return 
that were extended me. And I am cognizant of 
the fact that I fell in the estimation of several 


members of the Reformed Church when I did 
return to my former connections. 

But these things have never troubled me so 
very much. In fact, when first I planned to 
write this book, I intended to pass them by in 
silence. For such steps, I firmly hold, one ts re- 
sponsible to God rather than to men. “To one’s 
own Master one standeth or falleth”’. And is 
there not much wisdom in the advice of Elbert 
Hubbard, pagan though he was: “Never ex- 
plain; your friends don’t need it, and your ene- 
mies won't believe you anyhow”? 

Later on, however, it appeared to me that 1 
owed it to my friends and to myself to make a 
few remarks on the subject. Like most smart 
sayings, the one just quoted is but partly right. 
Misunderstanding is the root of much evil. 
Should I not try to remove it in this case? So 
lef me say just a little here, just a little more in 
the first chapter, and then drop the matter. 

Almost superfluous to say, it is not a sin in 
itself to leave one evangelical denomination for 
another. One may sin in dotng it, and one may 
not. Much depends on WHY the step is taken. 
Just think of the men and women who received 
their early training in the Christian Reformed 
Church and are now misstonartes for the 
Reformed. 

When I left the Christian Reformed Church, I 
was convinced that, in view of certain condi- 
tions which then prevailed in that denomination, 
I could do more for the Kingdom in the Re- 
formed Church in America. 


That the Reformed Church is historically the 
American church for Calvinists of Dutch ex- 
traction also had some weight with me. 

Had I been fully aware of the Reformed 
Church’s doctrinal laxity, I would not have made 
the change. 

Had the Christian Reformed Synod of 1924 
taken a less firm stand in the matter of common 
grace, I would not have been altogether so ready 
to return. 

But the subject of this book is quite another 
and one of incomparably greater importance. It 
is CALVINISM, primarily in its theological 
aspect. 

It goes altogether without saying that I did not 
plan to give anything like an exhaustive treat- 
ment of a single one of the subjects which head 
the following chapters. The one thing that I 
proposed to do was to call the attention of our 
people in plain language to a few things in con- 
nection with these subjects which, I believe, they 
need to be told in order to retain or regain their 
hold on the Reformed faith. 

As my readers I have in mind members of the 
two churches already named. May I not assume 
on their part an elementary knowledge of Re- 
formed doctrines and principles? 

I have sought to be constructive. It has been 
my constant striving to build up, not to break 
down. And whatever criticism the following 
pages contain ts offered in a spirit of unstinted 
Christian love. 

It will be noted that Scriptural quotations 


abound. There is a reason. Calvinism is, of 
course, thoroughly Biblical. Only in case texts 
are adduced as direct proofs of certain doctrines, 
is the exact reference given. | 

I have written neither to please nor to offend. 
Christ has made mea free man. And I love all 
men, especially those “who are of the household 
of faith’. 

May it prove that I have contributed a little to 
the good of men and, above all else, to God's 
glorification! 


June 18, 1926 RUBS 


PREFAGE TO THE SECOND EDITION 

HAT I AM DELIGHTED with the reception 

accorded AS TO BEING REFORMED, goes 
without saying. The demand for the book, 
which so soon made a second edition necessary, 
surpassed my fondest expectations. Especially 
appreciative am I of the many favorable com- 
ments made on this feeble effort of mine, not 
only by leading men in both denominations, and 
in other churches too, but by large numbers of 
“laymen” as well. 

As was to be expected, there has been a little 
adverse criticism. I have tried to appreciate it 
also. But I have not seen fit to change any of 
my positions. The only difference between this 
edition and the former consists of a few minor 
corrections, most of them typographical. 

May it please God to continue to own this 
endeavor. 


August 9, 1926 Reba 


My Experiences in the 
Reformed Church in America 


A ede'ra! rh 
Pye Pa VE cies | | 
AN ed ‘ 


Le G4 eks 
ky at iy tl 


rid i PME oats) aay Nee In ‘| 
; et aie i} 
i d eo hig 
7 a) ee Vs . Wg ‘ 
‘¥ Ve 5 


-« - Ce 
ee ee 


tte oe 


a 


a TAA 
a Se) 
alanis Tie 
Ne MeL m1 
Mey ine, ite 


VED An f ' 
Py , i. ‘ 


zs 





Civ Auber. kL 


My EXPERIENCE IN THE REFORMED CHURCH 
IN AMERICA 


|e THE SPRING of 1923 the Consistory of the 
Second Reformed Church of Kalamazoo requested 
me to give a Sunday to this church, which was then 
without a minister of its own. I declined the invita- 
tion. When the request was repeated in the summer, 
I promised to come on one of my vacation Sundays. 
And so on the second Sunday of August I preached 
for Second Kalamazoo. 

My morning sermon was on Pilate’s question, 
addressed to the Savior: ‘‘What is Truth?’ Toward 
the end of my discourse I especially stressed the 
facts: (1) that God is Truth; (2) that Christ is 
Truth; (8) that the Bible is Truth; (4) that the 
Reformed interpretation of the Bible, as embodied 
in the Reformed Church Standards, is Truth. I had 
delivered the same sermon to several other congrega- 
tions, but this time I enjoyed preaching it more than 
ever. The reason was not in me but in the audience. 
It was wonderfully responsive. The attention was 
truly rapt. 

It was largely on the strength of its impression of 
this sermon that the Second Reformed Church of 
Kalamazoo extended to me a unanimous call on Sep- 


16 As To Being Reformed 


tember 6, 1923. If I were to say that the call came 
as a complete surprise, I would be telling a lie. 
Though not a word of conversation or correspond- 
ence relative to a call had passed between any mem- 
ber of the church, including the Consistory, and me, 
yet I knew very well how the sermon referred to had 
taken. Besides, it was quite generally known that I 
was dissatisfied with certain conditions in my own 
denomination. 

To decline this call would, of course, have been to 
follow the path of least resistance. Full well did I 
realize that acceptance would cost me popularity and 
honors. Worse than that, I saw it coming that here- 
tofore warm friends would at least temporarily give 
me the cold shoulder. It was perfectly evident that, 
if I left the Christian Reformed Church, I was going 
to be misunderstood and even slandered. I knew 
that I would be stamped a renegade, a turn-coat, an 
apostate. Moreover, if I had ‘‘conferred with flesh 
and blood”, I would not have thought seriously of 
exchanging a very flourishing charge for one that 
was considerably run down. But the conviction kept 
growing on me that God wanted me to go. After an 
intense struggle I decided that I could not do other- 
wise. Nobody knows what inward pain I suffered 
when I was compelled to sever the tie that had for. 
six years united me to the Sherman Street Church, 
which to the present day I fondly regard as one of 
the best of all Christian Reformed churches. The 


As To Being Reformed 17 


reader will kindly bear with me if this sentiment 
seems prejudicial. 


For a minister to give to men a full account of the 
motives which actuated him in accepting or declining 
a call, has always seemed to me to be the height of 
folly. He owes an account only to his divine Sender. 
But I do want to tell of one consideration that had 
much weight with me in the case in hand. When I 
preached to the Second Reformed Church of Kala- 
mazoo on “What is Truth?” I thought to notice on 
the part of the audience a decided hunger and thirst 
for the Truth of God. While I had the call under 
consideration, I was assured by the Consistory, with- 
out my having mentioned the matter, that precisely 
this was the reason why I had been called. I felt it 
my sacred duty with the aid of God’s grace to help 
satisfy this hunger and quench this thirst. 


And now I must laud the Second Reformed Church. 
Soon after my arrival in its midst I discovered that 
with few exceptions its members were sadly unin- 
formed about Christian doctrine in general and Re- 
formed doctrine in particular. So I began to preach 
doctrine upon doctrine. And it took. The response 
was even enthusiastic. Sunday audiences doubled, to 
say the least. Prejudice against catechismal preach- 
ing broke down. The catechism classes, which had 
been nigh unto death, revived. A class for advanced 
Bible study, which was organized in order to get the 
adult members to studying, flourished. The Second 


18 As To Betng Reformed 


Reformed Church of Kalamazoo had proved its 
mettle. 

The church about which I am writing is far from 
perfect. It has several spots and not a few wrinkles. 
Exactly the same thing may truthfully be said of 
any other church. Perhaps that is an important 
reason why I felt as well at home at Second Kala- 
mazoo as I did. Somehow I am much more at ease 
in the company of rather great sinners than of per- 
fectionists. Nor am I ashamed to tell about this. 
May I not appeal to him who preferred the com- 
pany of publicans and sinners to that of Pharisees? 

For me to publish a long list of the faults which 
cleave to the Second Reformed Church of Kalamazoo 
would be a simple matter. But it would be as ignoble 
as if a member of this church were to prepare for 
print a catalogue of my faults. 

Second Kalamazoo has a reputation for world- 
liness. Several of its members are reported to have 
wasted valuable time at card-playing and to have 
frequented theatres. Some of the young people are 
said to dance occasionally. I know this to be sadly 
true. And so I felt it my duty to preach very fre- 
quently and very fervently against worldliness, and 
to remind God’s people that they are a peculiar 
people, a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, who 
ought to take pride in differing from the world. Just 
as I found it necessary to preach when I was still 
serving Christian Reformed churches. 

But the bulk of the membership is down on all 


As To Being Reformed 19 


forms of distinctly worldly amusements. And some 
who were slipping have thanked me for warning 
them. Nor can I escape the impression that much of 
the criticism that has been leveled against this 
church on the score of worldliness was prompted by 
jealousy of its financial prosperity and such narrow- 
mindedness as would not have permitted its proud 
possessor to enter a theatre if the silver-tongued and 
golden-hearted William Jennings Bryan were booked 
to deliver his lecture on The Prince of Peace. 

Kalamazoo Second has been called a hotbed of 
Masonry. It has even been asserted that the Con- 
sistory is full of Masons. When I left this church 
not a single Mason. held office. The men in the 
church who now are or once were connected with 
the Masonic organization number perhaps a baker’s 
dozen. Several have of late severed their connection 
with the lodge. I do not know of one active Mason in 
the church. Those who are Masons are faithful 
attendants at Sunday services; not one of them, so 
far as I can see, makes the lodge his church. I have 
reason to believe that my criticism of the lodge was 
not altogether futile. 

It is an exceedingly pleasant task for me to cata- 
logue a few of the many virtues of the Second Re- 
formed Church of Kalamazoo. They follow. 

The people of this church are friendly to the point 
of cordiality. Visitors and newcomers are made to 
feel at home, much as in the Lagrave Avenue Chris- 
tian Reformed Church. 


20 As To Being Reformed 


On several occasions the members of this church 
have manifested the warmest kind of sympathy and 
almost astounding generosity toward fellow-mem- 
bers in distress. I have here witnessed touching 
exemplifications of the truth that, when one member 
suffers, the other members suffer with it, and of the 
rule that Jesus’ disciples should bear one another’s 
burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. 

There is some culture in this church, which has 
contributed toward making my work in its midst 
pleasant. 

I have not had another church where as much was 
said and done to encourage me in my work. Chronic 
kickers, of which there seem to be some in every 
congregation, are exceptionally few here. 


As was already indicated, I discovered in this 
church not merely appreciation of, but a decided 
hunger for, doctrinal preaching. 

The most severe practical preaching was, to my 
knowledge, never resented by the congregation, and 
usually applauded. 

Genuine piety, a walking with God, intimate com- 
munion with the Savior, are characteristic of a con- 
siderable part of the membership of this church. 

With the possible exception of the Overisel Chris- 
tion Reformed Church, my lot has never been cast 
among Christians who conversed so freely, yet so 
tenderly, on spiritual matters. In this connection let 
me remark that I shall long remember the many 
sweet hours spent at family-visitation in Kalamazoo. 


As To Being Reformed 21 


I found more of the assurance of faith in the Sec- 
ond Reformed Church of Kalamazoo than I was 
accustomed to finding in Christian Reformed 
churches. The unhealthy view that doubting is a 
virtue has but very few adherents here. 

That the Christian may not be satisfied with re- 
ceiving blessings but ought also to dispense bless- 
ings, is pretty well understood by the bulk of the 
members. Hence there is considerable missionary 
activity here. For instance, the Second Church is 
responsible for the financial support of two mis- 
sionaries in foreign fields. 

Lest I seem to be praising out of due measure, per- 
haps I had better halt here. 

May I not record that on November 2, 1925, a full 
month after my return to the Christian Reformed 
Church, my wife and I had the unique pleasure of 
entertaining the Consistory members of the Second 
Reformed Church with their “better halves’? The 
evening was spent in eating and drinking, pleasant 
ehat and the singing of spiritual songs. 

Just one more thing I want to say. My reasons 
for leaving the Reformed Church in America were 
not primarily congregational. 


I long had misgivings about the doctrinal sound- 
ness of the Reformed Church in America. But, to 
be perfectly honest, I must admit that they were 
aroused by hearsay. And I have learned to discount 
hearsay liberally. 

Nevertheless, when I was considering the call from 


22 As To Being Reformed 


the Second Reformed Church of Kalamazoo, I 
thought myself in duty bound to heed this matter. 
I instituted what I thought was a careful and 
sufficiently thorough investigation. Several Re- 
formed Church leaders, whose doctrinal soundness 
I felt sure was far beyond suspicion, and for whose 
orthodoxy I even now have the highest regard, 
though I admit that I am puzzled, assured me that 
manifest departures from the Reformed Church 
Standards were not tolerated in the Reformed 
Church in America, not in the eastern section either. 


I received the call from Kalamazoo a couple of 
months after the adjournment of the General Synod 
of the Reformed Church in America. That Synod 
had elected Dr. Edward S. Worcester to the chair 
of Systematic Theology at the New Brunswick Theo- 
logical Seminary. I knew that his election had en- 
tailed somewhat of a struggle because a number 
of the delegates to the Synod were in doubt as to his 
doctrinal position. So I sought first-hand informa- 
tion on the subject. I was informed that, though 
at first there had been a question in the minds of 
several delegates concerning Dr. Worcester’s sound- 
ness, when the final ballot was cast doubts had van- 
ished and stalwart conservatives had rallied to his 
support. 

About six months after accepting Kalamazoo’s 
call—to be exact, on May 28, 1924—I came into 
possession of a document purporting to be a Memo- 
randum prepared for the Board of Superintendents 


As To Being Reformed 23 


of the New Brunswick Seminary by Dr. Worcester, 
pastor of the Congregational Church of Bellows 
Falls, Vermont, touching his views of the Reformed 
Church Standards. This memorandum was in the 
hands of said board when it nominated Dr. Wor- 
cester for the chair of Systematic Theology on May 
17, 1923. So great was my surprise on reading it 
that I doubted its authenticity. It is anything but 
Reformed. I am exceedingly sorry to say that my 
doubts were soon dispelled. The authenticity of 
this memorandum appears to be beyond question. 

Later on I received a copy of a printed summary 
of the chief contents of the memorandum. It was 
prepared and sent to many members of the General 
Synod of 1923 by four members of the Board of 
Superintendents of the New Brunswick Seminary 
who objected to the nomination of Dr. Worcester. 
They are the Reverends G. H. Hospers, H. P. Schuur- 
mans, J. E. Bennink, and J. F. Heemstra. This sum- 
mary is consonant with the memorandum itself. 

While it is not for me to publish this remarkable 
document, I do owe it to myself to say something 
about it. For it had more to do with my return to 
the Christian Reformed fold than any other one 
thing. If this step of mine needs justification, and 
it would seem to require some, here it is. 

I have the summary before me now. 


(1) Dr. Worcester seems not to understand Re- 
formed theology. Commenting, for instance, on the 
teaching that we, “being in the loins of Adam,” 


24 As To Being Reformed 


shared the guilty responsibility of his sin, he sup- 
poses that Reformed doctrine also holds us respon- 
sible for all the sins of all the intervening ancestors in 
whose loins we were. What faithful catechumen in a 
Reformed church does not know better? Again he 
says that he dislikes the idea of endowing Adam 
with entire freedom and responsibility, and deny- 
ing it, even in an impaired degree, to his successors. 
As if our Reformed Standards do in any way deny 
or impair the responsibility of Adam’s descendants! 


(2) Dr. Worcester would modify several Reformed 
doctrines. For Articles 6 to 11 of the first chapter 
of the Canons of Dordt, dealing with the doctrine 
of predestination, he would substitute a brief and 
simple reference to: 

a) “the clarity and stedfastness of God’s pur- 

poses,” 

b) “their righteous and gracious motives,” 

c) “the inclusion in his sovereign will of the gift 
to men, as part of the likeness to himself, in 
which he created them, of such free will that 
they may choose whether to act in loyal accord 
with his purposes or no—which is not at all 
necessarily such an abrogation of his sover- 
eignty as to imply that his purposes can and 
will in the long run be defeated,” 

d) “the sure reliance which the believer may 
place in the said righteous, gracious, and sted- 
fast purposes, and in their individual expres- 
sion to him as a call to sonship and service.” 


As To Being Reformed 25 


Iask: what seventeenth century Arminian would 
not gladly have subscribed to this statement? 


Worcester would also moderate the wording or 
interpretation of such statements as that the natural 
man is “wholly incapable of doing any good’’—Heid- 
elberg Catechism, Question 8—; and that the fact 
that some obey the Gospel call and are converted is 
not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will, 
but “wholly to God.’”—Canons, III, Article 10. 


(3) Dr. Worcester boldly rejects certain teach- 
ings of the Reformed churches. He finds no Scrip- 
tural warrant for the opinion that all men are de- 
scended from Adam. The doctrine of original sin he 
calls ‘‘a bit of the fanciful and allegorizing theology 
of the Rabbinic period of Judaism and similar 
schools in Christianity, which is worse than mean- 
ingless today.” 


(4) Dr. Worcester appears to be in doubt about 
some fundamental teachings of the Christian reli- 
gion. When it is said in Article 5 of the Belgic 
Confession that we believe, without any doubt, “all 
things’ contained in the Bible, he wonders whether 
the reference is to the inerrancy of Scripture, or 
only to the things “necessary to salvation,”’ and adds 
that he regards the doctrine of the inerrancy of 
Scripture as very academic, seeing that it is confined 
to the original manuscripts. He states that he does 
not willingly accept the Athanasian Creed, as does 
the Belgic Confession in Article 9. In justice to 


26 As To Being Reformed 


Dr. Worcester it must be said that this does not 
necessarily involve a rejection on his part of the 
doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Perhaps a passage 
in his inaugural address, delivered on May 22, 1924, 
may be taken as a commentary on this statement 
of the memorandum. Then he objects not so much 
to the doctrine set forth in the Athanasian Creed 
as to the “damnatory clauses” in which it is framed. 
And finally I must add that Dr. Worcester holds 
that the statement contained in Question 12 of the 
Catechism, that ‘‘God will have his justice satisfied, ‘i 
has no meaning to a ‘“‘modern.” 


Attention might be called to several other objec- 
tionable statements in Dr. Worcester’s memoran- 
dum. But let the above suffice. I am unspeakably 
sorry that I had to say so much. 

As it is, I will likely be called a tell-tale. But 
that slur I cast very far from me. A brief of the 
contents of the memorandum was broadcasted to 
many of the delegates to the Synod of 1923 before 
this body convened. Today the memorandum is a 
matter of common knowledge among the ministers 
of the Reformed Church in America. With little 
trouble any member of that denomination should 
be able to secure a copy of that document. And 
surely the members of a church who offer for their 
schools of theology and are expected to pray for 
them, whose these schools are, and whose future 
spiritual leaders are molded in them, should know 
the theology of their professors. Then too, it might 


As To Being Reformed 27 


seem that I am trying to sow seeds of discord in the 
Reformed field. Nothing is farther removed from 
my mind. I wish the Reformed Church in America 
peace and prosperity, and both in rich abundance. 


Before going on, I want to doff my hat to Dr. 
Edward 8S. Worcester. His theology I despise. I 
highly respect his person. He is a real man. He 
was a candidate for one of the highest honors at the 
disposal of a distinguished denomination. In order 
to receive this honor he would have to subscribe to 
the creeds of that denomination. At the risk of 
losing the proffered honor he stated his objections 
frankly. Would that all theologians were as honest! 


I am puzzled to know why the Board of Superin- 
tendents of the Seminary nominated Dr. Worcester 
for the chair of Systematic Theology, and even more 
to understand how the Synod, cognizant as it was 
of the content of his memorandum, could elect him. 
To be sure, several ballots were cast before the three- 
fourths vote required by Section 32 of the Consti- 
tution of the Reformed Church in America was at- 
tained. But the final ballot was practically unani- 
mous. I shall mention only those answers to the 
question just raised which seem to me at once most 
plausible and most charitable. Dr. Worcester ap- 
pears to be a man of remarkably pleasing person- 
ality, and it was felt that just such a man was needed 
to attract students to the New Brunswick Seminary. 
Then too, in the course of the election another state- 
ment of Dr. Worcester was presented to Synod by 


28 As To Being Reformed 


the Professors Beardsley, Raven, and Demarest, 
which convinced many doubters that after all he 
was sound in the fundamentals. 


But not one of the several delegates to the Synod 
of 1923 whom I have interviewed about the matter, 
has dared to answer in the affirmative my question 
whether Dr. Worcester retracted the views expressed 
in his memorandum. Evidently he did not. And so 
I am still in a desperate quandary to understand 
how a Reformed Synod could elect him to a profes-. 
sorate in one of its seminaries. Even if he had 
retracted, it should still have been entirely out of 
the question to elect to the chair of Systematic Theo- 
logy in a Reformed school a man who recently held 
the views expressed in the memorandum. 

In conclusion let me say that the case of Dr. Wor- 
cester convinced me that I could not possibly feel at 
home in the Reformed Church in America. 


Is the Reformed Church in America 
Reformed? 


iy he 


7% ek 
ee 
sath 


as 


Levitt 4;  L' 
Motels 62° ial 


ae 
fia ‘ 
RAL) 44) ai 
4 an ae Y ] 
TMU bats oY A Thee 

(ete e 
: Ll Tee Ye 
Ree ee 
ie ST Ae ton Reh 
) Oy Tes) Vee 
Ce 


A 
, a 
ane 
ML 





CH ACE eB ITE. 
IS THE REFORMED CHURCH IN AMERICA REFORMED? 


T IS NOT my aim to answer the question written 
over this chapter either affirmatively or nega- 
tively. Rather do I propose to submit some evidence 
which he who seeks to answer it will have to con- 
sider. It goes without saying that I cannot present 
all the evidence that is. May I not confine myself 
to certain facts that have of late struck me rather 
forcibly ? 

It is a matter of common knowledge that the Re- 
formed Church in America has virtually the same 
Doctrinal Standards as the Reformed Churches in 
the Netherlands and the Christian Reformed Church 
in America. They are the Belgic Confession, the 
Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt. 
When I say virtually, the reference is to the fact 
that the Reformed Church has seen fit to drop the 
Rejection of Errors at the conclusion of each of 
the five Canons. To my knowledge, this omission 
has never been satisfactorily explained. In view of 
the extreme prevalence of Arminianism in America, 
it seems to me to be very unwise. Yet I would not 
at all press this point. The positive statements of 
doctrine in the Canons cover the ground so well that 
it is hardly conceivable that one could conscientiously 


32 As To Being Reformed 


subscribe to them and at the same time harbor the 
errors which occasioned their preparation. 

At the same time, few will be so naive as to sup- 
pose that a church with Reformed creeds cannot 
possibly be anything but Reformed. It is no secret 
that the creeds of some denominations are to many 
members little more than a dead letter. That might 
conceivably be the case in the Reformed Church in 
America. 

_ As a matter of fact, a large part of the member- 
ship of the Reformed Church takes its creeds very 
seriously. There are many Consistories which brook 
no departure from the Confessions on the part of 
their ministers. I could name several ministers, not 
all of them in the western section of the church 
either, who not only subscribe to the Standards 
wholeheartedly, but also preach their contents vali- 
antly. 

It is my impression that the Western Theological 
Seminary at Holland, Mich., stands with both its 
feet squarely on the solid ground of the Reformed 
Church Standards. I gather this from sermons and 
addresses by the professors as well as from the 
examinations of graduates of this institution by 
Classes. I have had the privilege and, I may add, 
the pleasure of taking an active part in four such 
examinations. The men examined measured well 
up to the average candidate in the Christian Re- 
formed Church in point of Reformed convictions. 

To my mind it would require a heresy-hunter to 
discover departures from the Reformed Confessions 


As To Being Reformed a) 


in the many articles prepared for The Leader in the 
course of several years by its very able editor, Dr. 
J. E. Kuizenga. I dare say this quite confidently, 
though I have not read every single one of them. 


A minister in the Reformed Church in America 
who received the greater part of his education at 
Reformed institutions in the Netherlands, told me 
recently that, while in some respects he would rather 
serve in the Christian Reformed Church, he pre- 
ferred the Reformed because of its church polity. 
It was not at all difficult for me to understand 
his position. If the special stress which such eminent 
Dutch authorities as Dr. F. L. Rutgers and Dr. H. 
H. Kuyper have in recent decades been placing on 
the autonomy of the local church be specifically 
Reformed, then in this one respect at least the Re- 
formed Church in America is ahead of the Christian 
Reformed. For instance, the Synods of the Reformed 
Church never assess the local churches so much per 
family for the financial support of the denomina- 
tion’s educational institutions. Nor would it occur to 
a Reformed Synod to lay down anything like a bind- 
ing rule regarding choir singing. Christian Re- 
formed Synods have been known to do such things. 

But I return to the matter of doctrine, which 
interests me more than points of polity and also 
strikes me as being more important. And now to 
my keen regret I shall have to come to things less 
favorable. 

Without again enlarging on the case of Dr. Wor- 


34 As To Being Reformed 


cester, I would repeat the question: How on earth 
was it possible for the Synod of a church which 
calls itself Reformed to elect a man with such theo- 
logical views to the chair of Systematic Theology 
at one of its seminaries? 


The specifically Reformed doctrine of predestina- 
tion, which John Calvin called ‘‘cor ecclesiae,” ‘‘the 
heart of the church,” is, to put it mildly, largely 
neglected in the Reformed Church in America. On 
several occasions I have preached it to Reformed 
congregations. In every case there were many who 
expressed surprise at the doctrine and a few who 
dissented. On one such occasion a man who had 
been elder for years, said to me: “You almost con- 
vinced me.” I happen to know an instance of a 
person’s leaving a Christian Reformed church be- 
cause he could no longer believe predestination, and 
then being received with open arms by a neighbor- 
ing Reformed Consistory. 

Another specifically Reformed doctrine which is 
not receiving anything like due emphasis in the 
Reformed Church is that of the covenant of grace. 
In some churches children of members in full com- 
munion remain unbaptized for years. The erroneous 
view prevails very generally that those who were 
baptized in infancy do not really become church- 
members until they make profession of faith. Horace 
Bushnell was, of course, a heretic on several points; 
yet many a member of the Reformed Church might 
read to advantage his Christian Nurture, in which he 


As To Being Reformed 9) 


draws attention away from revivals to the training 
of children in Christian homes as the law of growth 
in the church. The Reformed teaching of the pre- 
supposed regeneration of covenant children would, 
I am sure, find little favor with a large part of the 
membership of this denomination. One reason, I 
take it, why the Reformed Church makes more of 
revivals than does the Christian Reformed Church, 
is that it makes less of the covenant doctrine. And 
it seems reasonable to suppose that it is partly for 
the same reason that the members of the Reformed 
Church generally do not feel as keenly as they should 
the need of Christian schools for their children. 


There are Reformed churches which do not hesi- 
tate to receive into their fellowship such Christians 
as have little or no knowledge of Reformed doctrines, 
to say nothing of positive Reformed convictions. In 
an address on The Local Church Functioning De- 
nominationally, delivered before the Men’s Mid- 
winter Conference at the Marble Collegiate Church 
on February 4, 1924, the Reverend Deane Edwards 
of the Bronxville, N. Y., Reformed Church said: 
“The important thing is not the name but the 
thing that it names. This is the very fact that 
enables us in Bronxville to gather into our local 
church Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Congre- 
gationalists, and others, and to make them working 
‘Dutchmen’! They realize that it is largely a matter 
of name; and they are willing to take off the twelve 
letters of ‘Presbyterian’ or the nine letters of ‘Metho- 


36 As To Being Reformed 


dist,’ or whatever it may be, and substitute the eight 
letters of ‘Reformed’ because they appreciate that 
in so doing they are not changing the thing. They 
say, ‘What’s in a name?’ and they take hold of the 
work of our Church because they believe it to be 
that of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” 

It strikes me as being very significant that the 
address containing this statement was approvingly 
broadcasted through the denomination by the Re- 
formed Church Progress Council. 

Ministers who can hardly be said to be Reformed 
are frequently welcomed into Reformed Church pul- 
pits. The following clipping from The Christian 
Intelligencer of July 2, 1924, will serve as evidence: 


“Summer Preachers at Marble Collegiate Church. 
—A list of notable preachers is to be heard during 
the vacation season at the Marble Collegiate Church, 
Fifth Avenue and 29th Street, New York City. Sun- 
day, July 6 and Sunday, July 13, Rev. Jason Noble 
Pierce, D. D., President Coolidge’s pastor, will preach 
both morning and evening. July 20, Rev. Ralph W. 
Sockman, D. D., Madison Avenue M. E. Church, New 
York City; July 27, Rev. J. W. Henderson, D. D., 
associate pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church, 
Brooklyn, N. Y.; August 3 and 10, Rev. David 
DeForest Burrell, D. D., pastor of First Presby- 
terian Church of Williamsport, Pa.; August 17 and 
24, Rev. Charles D. Skinner, D. D., pastor of Cen- 
tral Park M. E. Church, Buffalo, N. Y.; August 31, 
Rev. William I. Chamberlain, D. D., Secretary of 
in 


As To Being Reformed o7 


the Board of Foreign Missions; September 7, 14, 21 
and 28, Rev. Charles L. Goodell, D. D., General Sec- 
retary of the Commission on Evangelism, Federal 
Council of Churches.” 

Exceedingly significant is the exchange of opinions 
among Reformed ministers in several issues of The 
Christian Intelligencer on the question whether 
young men, on entering the ministry, should still be 
asked to sign the Formula, in which agreement with 
the Church Standards is expressed. 

The question was first raised by the Reverend 
E. C. Vanderlaan in the issue of November 26, 1924. 
Among other things he says: “Can anyone claim that 
the vast majority of our ministers are convinced of 
the five points of Calvinism? When an occasional 
Methodist or Baptist enters our ministry, is it likely 
that he comes because of a profound change of con- 
viction about predestination, or because he has come 
to the conclusion that infants ought to be baptized? 
Is it not rather usually with the conviction that these 
things do not matter? It has come about that the 
things in which our fathers meant us to differ from 
other donominations have sunk almost out of sight, 
-and that one can only say that our ministers are 
orthodox, in a large and general way, on the great 
doctrines common to all orthodox churches.” 

In succeeding issues several ministers of the Re- 
formed Church expressed their opinions on this mat- 
ter. Some strongly favored continued use of the 
Formula, while others frankly stated that there 


38 As To Being Reformed 


ought to be substituted for it a simple formula em- 
phasizing “the Gospel of the Grace of God in Jesus 
Christ.” And nobody called into question the truth- 
fulness of Mr. Vanderlaan’s statements concerning 
the actual attitude of many Reformed Church minis- 
ters toward the Standards. 


It appears, then, that in the matter of Reformed 
theology the Reformed Church in America is 
peculiarly constituted. JI am reminded of the feet 
of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-image: part iron, part 
clay. 

However, perfect fairness requires that I append 
a note here. While I would not for a moment 
attempt to justify the laxity of the Reformed Church 
regarding specifically Reformed doctrines, I will say 
that it is very easily explained historically. The 
Reformed Church has been called “the oldest Pro- 
testant denomination in America.” It is almost three 
hundred years old now. Consequently a large part 
of it is thoroughly American. Now surely American 
and Reformed are not antonyms. Yet it is not 
strange that continuous close contact with other 
American denominations, most of them not at all 
Reformed, has dulled the Reformed Church’s sense 
of Calvinism. Again, centuries of intermarriage 
of its members with those of other churches have 
brought into the Reformed Church large numbers 
of men and women without Reformed convictions. 
And what is perhaps most significant in this connec- 
tion, the Reformed Church has long been very active 


As To Being Reformed 39 


in missions at home as well as abroad. That is its 
glory. But missionaries do not, as a rule, greatly 
stress the five points of Calvinism. Is it strange 
then that it has received many into its communion 
who indeed confess the name of Christ, but per- 
haps have never heard of Calvin or Dordt? , 

And lest we of the Christian Reformed Church 
exalt ourselves, let us remember the apostolic in- 
junction: “Let him that thinketh he standeth take 
heed lest he fall!” What will have become of us 
in another two hundred years? ‘Hold fast that 
which thou hast!’’ 


PS | Peat 
i uN ae dist { 
Br a ry > 





Doctrinal Controversy 


in the Christian Reformed Church 


» 


tat 
ae 


sit 


r ¥ t 
‘ PAS 
4 ; Fi - 


in 5 a ey ae Uk ‘ 
‘ i ‘oF oe) 
ne ky, Plea 
Rha! ry ‘ — ‘ 





Gi A POT nk sil. 


DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSY IN THE CHRISTIAN 
REFORMED CHURCH 


66 HAT ails the Christian Reformed Church 

anyhow?” That question has of late been 
asked hundreds of times by members of the Chris- 
tian Reformed Church as well as by outsiders. And 
it was usually doctrinal controversy in the church 
that occasioned the question. 

It cannot be denied that the Christian Reformed 
Church has in recent years had what would seem 
to be much more than its proper share of doctrinal 
debate. To pass over minor conflicts in silence, 
inside a single decade a minister was deposed for 
denying the unity of the church of the old and the 
new dispensations and the Kingship of Christ over 
the church; a professor of theology was deposed 
when he refused to give an account of himself 
before Synod though he was charged with heresy 
on the basis of certain students’ notes which de- 
tracted from the divine authority of Holy Writ; sev- 
eral ministers were deposed because they categori- 
cally denied the Reformed doctrine of common 
grace; and a minister was deposed for giving too 
liberal an interpretation of Lord’s Day 38 of the 


44 As To Being Reformed 


Heidelberg Catechism, which explains the Sabbath 
commandment. That surely is some record. It 
would be remarkable for a much larger denomina- 
tion. And as given it is not even complete. 


Consequently outsiders generally despise the 
Christian Reformed Church; many of its own mem- 
bers are blushing for shame; occasionally even a 
minister threatens to leave “if this thing does not 
stop very soon.” 

The readers hardly expect me to rehash the doc- 
trinal material that has been presented to the Chris- 
tian Reformed people of recent years in books, bro- 
chures, and Synodical Acta. Not a few of them, 
I fear, are fed up on it. I doubt too whether I 
could add much that is new. And so I shall discuss 
my subject largely from a formal viewpoint. 


I wish to go on record as regarding this doctrinal 
controversy as a sign of health. No, I do not deny 
that it has a dark side; of that I am well aware. 
But there is also a very bright side to it. And just 
now I want to take pains to show up this bright side 
because it has been overlooked too much altogether. 


The Christian Reformed Church still takes doc- 
trine seriously. It has not been blinded by the pop- 
ular fallacy of the day which has deceived scores of 
denominations, thousands of preachers, and millions 
of church-members, that Christianity is not a doc- 
trine, but a life. Was ever antithesis more false 
pawned off? Christianity stands or falls with cer- 
tain doctrines. It is not merely a system of moral- 


As To Being Reformed 45 


ity ; it is in the very first place the religion of truth. 
The Christian church is pillar and ground of the 
truth. 

Does not history teach us that especially by doc- 
trinal debate the cause of truth is wont to be ad- 
vanced? In the furnace of controversy the dirty 
dross of falsehood has time and again been sepa- 
rated from the precious gold of truth. The Spirit of 
truth has been pleased many a time and oft to 
lead the church progressively in the truth through 
the clash of opinions. Almost all the great truths of 
Christendom were crystallized by conflict. That 
‘leads me to believe that ere long the Christian Re- 
formed Church may well prove to be one of the most 
truly progressive churches of the land. 


While the Christian Reformed Church was torn 
by conflict, many other churches seemed to be enjoy- 
ing enviable peace. But let us not be deceived by 
the appearance of things. There is a peace which 
is no peace. Peace obtained at the expense of truth 
is unworthy of its name. -There are churches which 
ascribe their apparent peace to doctrinal tolerance, 
while as a matter of fact they are guilty of doctrinal 
indifference, the wages of which are death. Ceme- 
teries too are peaceful places. Some months ago, 
when I was considering a call from a Christian Re- 
formed Church, a friend said: ‘‘You don’t want to 
go back there; they’re always fighting.” I replied: 
“There are churches which badly need a good fight.’ 

Let no member of the Christian Reformed Church 


46 As To Being Reformed 


be ashamed of his membership in a denomination 
that regards purity of doctrine worth fighting for. 
It is reason for just pride. 

At the same time, it must be admitted that the 
manner in which recent doctrinal controversies were 
carried on in the Christian Reformed Church was 
not altogether beyond reproach. The spirit of the 
debate was frequently quite reprehensible. That 
part of the story is sad. 

It seems to me that we have sinned against two 
laws.especially: that of justice or fairness, and that 
of charity or love. Without making any attempt 
to cite all possible instances, let me illustrate. 


A committee of seven was asked to investigate the 
teachings of Dr. Janssen. The Curatorium, which 
appointed this committee, apparently wanted to be 
fair. It selected three men who were known to 
favor Janssen more or less, three who were known 
as his opponents, and one neutral. So far so good. 
But how it blundered when it placed two men on the 
committee whose own doctrinal soundness was under 
suspicion! Manifestly that should never have been 
done. Men who flatly denied the Reformed doctrine 
of common grace were unfit to pass judgment on 
the Reformed character of Janssen’s teachings, the 
more so since he made so very much of this partic- 
ular truth. They simply could not be expected to 
give him a square deal. 


It has always seemed to me that the attempts 
made through brochures and otherwise to create an 


As To Being Reformed 47 


anti-Janssen atmosphere in the church before the 
Synod of 1922 was a breach of fairness. 


The report of the advisory committee which recom- 
mended the deposition of Dr. Janssen by the Synod 
of Orange City in 1922, was written by two very 
able ministers. Synod adopted their report with 
only minor changes. Protests against this decision 
were raised before the Synod of Kalamazoo in 1924. 
This body appointed a committee to study and 
answer the objections. And this committee was 
again headed by the two ministers just referred to. 
I question the fairness of this arrangement. No, it 
is not difficult to see why the Synod of 1924 assigned 
this work to these men. They were better posted 
than any others on the subject matter. And it does 
not enter my mind to question the perfectly sincere 
desire of these brethren to be eminently fair. But 
men are human. And how human it is to try to 
justify before the public a stand once taken! It is 
distasteful to say: “I was in error two years ago.” 


But I come to something more general. It is a 
recognized rule that a defendant should be regarded 
innocent until his guilt is proven. I fear that com- 
paratively few of us have made a concerted attempt 
to live up to that rule in the doctrinal controversies 
of recent years. We have been altogether too ready 
to condemn. And that, I believe, accounts for much 
of the hard feeling that has been prevalent in our 
circles for some time. 

In the spirit of Christian love we should have done 


48 As To Being Reformed 


all in our power to save the brethren who were 
threatened with deposition. We should have remem- 
bered the exhortation of James: “‘Brethren, if any 
of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, 
let him know that he which converteth the sinner 
from the error of his way shall save a soul from 
death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.’”’ But who 
dares to say that we always did this? Was there 
not rather manifested a desire in some cases to get 
rid of a troublesome brother? I for one have no 
doubt at all that the Reverend Bultema, with a little 
more patience, could quite easily have been saved 
for the denomination. 

The love of Christ requires that he who sees a 
brother err or suspects him of error, go to see him 
personally, in order, if possible, to correct him, be- 
fore publishing the matter. This was not done in the 
case of Janssen. I am well aware of the attempts 
that have been made to show that it was not neces- 
sary in this instance, but the arguments raised have 
always struck me as sophistry. Even if it could be 
proven conclusively that in Matthew 18:15-18 Christ 
was thinking only of personal offenses and not of 
general sins, yet the principle stated in the first sen- 
tence of this paragraph would hold. And, by the 
way, it is not true at all what is said on page 46 
of the semi-centennial volume of the Theological 
School and Calvin College, that the Synod of 1920 
expressed as its opinion that this principle did not 
apply to the Janssen case. The motion was before 


As To Being Reformed A9 


the house to disapprove of the action of Janssen’s 
colleagues in bringing their suspicions to the atten- 
tion of Curatorium before seeing him personally. 
It seemed that this motion would prevail. Then a 
good brother suggested that this point be dropped 
because of its personal implication. He did not like 
the idea of Synod’s virtually rebuking our professors 
of theology. Thereupon the motion was voted down. 
But surely one does not need to take a university 
course in logic to see that not to decide that a thing 
should have been done is not necessarily equivalent 
to deciding that it need not have been done. I want 
to add that I believe that the practical application of 
the principle under discussion would be conducive in 
a remarkable degree to the peace of our Christian 
Reformed Zion. 

If all the offensive personalities indulged in of 
recent years among us were to be retracted, what 
a piece of work that would be! Few of us that took 
an active part in the discussions can plead perfect 
innocence. Might not I and others have expressed 
ourselves more kindly? Dr. Janssen’s public utter- 
ances sometimes bristled with personal charges. To 
the present day I refuse to believe that every one 
of the four professors and four ministers who pub- 
lished a somewhat unsavory brochure during the 
Janssen controversy was fully aware of its contents. 
And should not the brother who quoted: “Do not I 
hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? I hate them 
with perfect hatred” on the floor of the Orange City 


50 As To Being Reformed 


Synod in plain reference to Dr. Janssen, have been 
publicly rebuked? 

Quirinus Breen has gone from us. He has fallen 
under the spell of Modernism. The case is an ex- 
ceedingly sad one. Are we sad? Do we feel truly 
sorry for him? I doubt not that many of us do. But 
the expressions of sadness have not been numerous. 
On the other hand, I have heard many speak of him 
in rather proud disdain. And to hardly anybody 
does it seem to occur that our denominational errors 
may have had something to do with his defection. 


Would to God that I might have been spared the 
pain of writing the foregoing paragraphs of criti- 
cism! How gladly would I have left them unwritten! 
But I have long felt an irrepressible urge to say 
what I have said. Sense of duty bade me speak. 
I cannot agree with the many who say: “This case 
or that is a closed incident; let us forget about it.” 
We have sinned. And only then can we afford to 
forget about our sins when we have humbly sought 
forgiveness in the blood of Jesus Christ, which 
cleanses from all sins, denominational as well as 
personal. 


I would humbly call attention to a couple of les- 
sons which the Christian Reformed Church, especi- 
ally its ministry, may well learn from its late doc- 
trinal controversies. 

We are not well enough posted on Reformed doc- 
trine. We have indeed the reputation of being ex- 
ceptionally strong doctrinally. But we are not 


As To Being Reformed 5) | 


nearly strong enough. Leading men among us 
highly recommended Bultema’s Maranatha when 
first it appeared. For a long time Hoeksema’s arti- 
cles in The Banner, in which he flatly denied the doc- 
trine of common grace, went unchallenged. I fear 
that our preaching is partly to blame for the fact 
that Hoeksema and Danhof have gained so large a 
following from our ranks. For comparatively few 
of us have dared boldly to proclaim that God’s offer 
of salvation to all who hear the Gospel preached is 
perfectly sincere. We had a vague notion that this 
was Arminianism. Yet the professor of Homiletics 
at the seminary—be it said to his lasting honor— 
had long stressed this very truth. 

What we Christian Reformed ministers sorely 
need to do is to make a thorough study of Bavinck’s 
Reformed Dogmatics. It would do our churches 
worlds of good. 

Again, it is high time that we should apply our- 
selves to the study of Reformed church polity. Just 
let me mention two matters with reference to which 
we seem to be considerably at sea. What is the exact 
nature and extent of the authority of major assem- 
blies over Consistories? And in what relation do 
secular jurisprudence and church law stand to one 
another? In how far do the general principles of the 
former hold for the latter? By the way, perhaps we 
may derive a little comfort from the fact that both 
of these questions seem to puzzle the authorities in 
the Netherlands almost as much as us. The debates 


52 As To Being Reformed 


in connection with the Geelkerken trial give evidence 
to that effect. 

By all means let us strive to preserve doctrinal 
balance. To stress certain truths at the expense of 
others often leads to serious consequences. Almost 
all heresies have originated in that way. It is my 
opinion that all our doctrinal difficulties of the last 
decade can be accounted for on this score. 

To illustrate, let us be careful not to emphasize 
the supernatural origin of the Bible so strongly that 
our view of inspiration becomes mechanical, but, 
on the other hand, let us also beware, as of poison, 
of the leaven of those who stress the human element 
in Scripture at the expense of the divine. And let 
us preach both the sovereignty of God and the 
responsibility of man, but may we be kept from 
placing undue emphasis on one or the other of these 
Scriptural truths. 

This does not mean that we should always seek 
the so-called golden mean. Sometimes the mean 
is anything but golden. Such a policy would result 
in our filing the sharp edges off God’s truth. Rather 
let us teach both extremes as God has given them 
in his Word. We should boldly proclaim the full 
counsel of God. 

And let us, without ever sacrificing the truth, 
endeavor ‘‘to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond 
of peace, with all lowliness and meekness, with long- 
suffering, forbearing one another in love.” 


| Perils Besetting the 
Christian Reformed Church 


fi Ve : 
My HN) i 


vue 5. eu iv 
eh Paths b Susp y' t's rie 
Py a ) 





CHAPTER IV. 


PERILS BESETTING THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED 
CHURCH 


T IS my purpose in a modest way to sound a note 
of warning. I would call attention to some perils 
that beset the Christian Reformed Church. As I see 
it, we are threatened from two directions. To use 
Biblical terms, we are in danger of Sadduceeism on 
the one hand, of Pharisaism on the other. But, with- 
out pressing these terms, let me mention some seven 
perils that strike me as being rather imminent. 


(1) Let no one suppose that the Christian Re- 
formed Church is so thoroughly sound that it is 
immune to the rot of Modernism. By this time we. 
ought to know better. Recently one of our most 
promising young preachers, himself the son of one of 
our most highly respected older ministers, became a 
disciple of Harry Emerson Fosdick. A few of our 
“laymen” followed suit. What guarantee have we 
that this incident will not recur? Moreover, if there 
were a way of determining the exact number of those 
who deserted the Christian Reformed Church for the 
Modernist camp in the course of the last two decades, 
I doubt not that it would prove surprisingly large. 

The rapidly growing number of our young people 
who are completing their education at our big Amer- 


36 As To Being Reformed 


ican universities are in special danger. Almost all 
these institutions are hotbeds of Modernism. Now it 
goes without saying that as a rule an immature stu- 
dent is no match intellectually for his highly trained 
teachers. In an argument he is soon worsted. Not 
infrequently the consequence is that his faith is 
shaken. There is grave danger that he will lose his 
moorings and depart from historical orthodoxy. 

But let me guard against misunderstanding. Let 
the reader not think that I would insinuate that our 
students, say at the University of Michigan, are not 
to be trusted. That very thing I have heard whis- 
pered, but the whisperers ought to be disciplined for 
bringing a whole class of people into disrepute. That 
is decidedly un-Christian. If anybody has positive 
proof that a certain student has turned Modernist, 
let him say so, if need be. But let no one under the 
guise of piety and orthodoxy flout the ninth com- 
mandment. As for me, I had the pleasure of spend- 
ing a Sunday in January, 1925, with the Reformed 
and Christian Reformed students at Ann Arbor, and 
I want to testify to the impression that for the most 
part they are putting up a heroic and prayerful fight 
against odds to maintain the faith once for all deliv- 
ered to the saints. 

Would I seek to dissuade the graduates of our Re- 
formed colleges from pursuing post-graduate work 
at American universities? Not that either. It is 
impossible in this world of ours to avoid all dangers. 
It is not even policy to attempt it. To try it breeds 


As To Being Reformed 57 


cowardice. Besides, we believe, do we not? the 
perseverance of saints. Once God the Holy Spirit 
has wrought faith in one’s heart, one will always be a 
believer. All the theories of unbelief presented by 
the cleverest dialecticians cannot deprive one be- 
liever of true faith. Again, to have one’s faith 
shaken temporarily by the winds of. doubt, often 
results in its striking its roots down more deeply into 
the heart. Paradoxical though it may sound, he who 
never doubts seldom has a strong faith. And then, 
is it not true that many of the greatest men that the 
church of God has ever had were educated largely 
by the world? To mention just a few of recent data: 
both Kuyper and Bavinck were graduates of liberal 
Dutch universities. 

But we may not tempt God. And we are in sacred 
duty bound to use all available means for the main- 
tenance and strengthening of our faith. Therefore 
special pains should be taken at our own schools to 
forewarn and forearm the students against the wiles 
of Modernism. Nor should we stop there. I am con- 
vinced that we may not rest until we shall have 
established in America a full-fledged Reformed Uni- 
versity. 

Meanwhile let us remember that our students of 
today at the modern and Modernist universities will 
be our leaders tomorrow. A prayer for them, that 
they may continue loyal to the faith of their fathers, 
is a prayer for our children. 

Modernism is rapidly being popularized. Time 


58 As To Being Reformed 


there was when it was practically confined to a lim- 
ited number of university professors. Today it is 
being instilled into the minds of children almost 
from the kindergarten up. Books on Modernism 
some years ago were found almost exclusively on the 
shelves of intellectual high-brows. Today books of 
fiction, magazines, and newspapers bristle with it. 
The day when Modernism was taught only at Yale 
and Union Seminaries is past. Hosts of pedantic 
preachers parcel it out to unsuspecting Sunday audi- 
ences over the length and the breadth of the land. 
Modernism is in the air. 

Well may we plead on the promise: ‘‘When the 
enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the 
Lord shall lift up a standard against him.” And let 
us not be remiss in performing the duty suggested 
by the words: “‘Thou hast given a banner to them 
that fear thee, that it may be displayed because of 
the truth.” 


(2) It is not a pleasant task to warn against the 
errors of Fundamentalism. We of Reformed per- 
suasion have so much in common with the Funda- 
mentalists, and our need of each other in the fight on 
Modernism is so great, that I would much rather 
make a plea for presenting a united front against 
the common foe. As a matter of fact, I do plead for 
that. Let us by all means give support to such organ- 
izations, for instance, as the League of Evangelical 
Students. 

And yet a gentle warning is by no means super- 


As To Being Reformed 59 


fluous. It would not be strange if, in our aversion 
from Modernism, some of us should turn Funda- 
mentalists. Psychologically that could easily be ex- 
plained. In fact, that is exactly what has happened 
to a limited number of our people. I am thinking 
of those who recently joined the so-called Open Bible 
Church. To me it seems that the Reverend Bultema 
too has erred in this direction. 

But, as will be pointed out in another chapter, 
Fundamentalism is not Calvinism. And not Funda- 
mentalism, but Calvinism, is the antidote for Mod- 
ernism. 


(3) Admittedly worldliness is threatening to en- 
gulf our Christian Reformed people. So important is 
the consideration of this peril that it deserves a 
whole chapter. At this point let it suffice to call 
attention to a few things which have contributed 
toward making this danger imminent. 

About a generation ago the Christian Reformed 
people closely resembled a drop of oil floating on the 
waters of American life. They mixed hardly at all. 
Their isolation was not complete, of course; yet 
nearly so. And that condition was natural. The 
great majority of them were immigrants who under- 
stood neither the language nor the spirit of this land. 
Consequently it was not difficult for them to keep 
aloof from certain forms of worldliness. Today con- 
ditions are radically different. We have been Amer- 
icanizing at rapid pace. Now most of us move quite 
freely in the American world. Small wonder that 


60 As To Being Reformed 


we are learning to indulge in those forms of world- 
liness which are popular among Americans. 


Our parents were comparatively poor. Some of us 
are rich, many more are well-to-do. And almost all 
of us can afford to be worldly. That is, we think we 
can. Fools that weare! Yes, let us be thankful that 
we are in a position to.pay for legitimate pleasures. 
But let us never forget that we pay for the pleasures 
of sin with our souls. No one can afford that price. 
For what shall it profit a man if he revel in the lust 
of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of 
life and lose his soul? 

The war has something to do with the present sit- 
uation. Wars usually have a powerful demoralizing 
influence, not only on the soldiers, but on the popu- 
lace generally. In this respect the world war was no 
exception. Its aftermath, in the throes of which we 
find ourselves today, is unwonted lawlessness, espe- 
cially among the young. Thatis why our city streets 
are littered with flappers and sheiks; why feminine 
modesty almost seems a thing of the past. Let us not 
flatter ourselves with the thought that our Christian 
Reformed young people have escaped this scourge. 


To me it seems that a certain phase of the Re- 
formed doctrine of the covenant has not been stressed 
sufficiently in recent years. I have in mind the truth 
that God’s people differ from the world and ought to 
take a holy pride in differing. They are in a spirit- 
ual sense aristocrats. Children they are of the King. 
Alas, we are losing sight of that and have fallen to 


As To Being Reformed 61 


imitating the common herd; we are selling our birth- 
right for a mess of pottage. Daniels, Shadrachs, 


Mechechs, and Abednegos are becoming increasingly — 


few. 

If I were asked to list some of the greatest evils 
under the sun, I surely would assign a prominent 
place to mixed marriages. They are themselves a 
form of worldliness and usually lead to much more 
of it. Words cannot express how sorry I feel for the 
child of the covenant who marries an unbeliever. I 
am even more sorry for the ofispring of such a 
union. But also this evil is becoming prevalent in 
our Christian Reformed circles. 

Some of our people think that the doctrine of com- 
mon grace tends to make people worldly. But that 
is plainly a fallacy. Common grace is unmistakably 
taught in Scripture. Let us beware of blaming the 
Bible and implicitly its divine Author for our sins. 
When we sin, we are to blame. To be sure, there are 
those who use the doctrine of common grace as an 
excuse for worldiiness. Say they: “If God is good to 
all men and if there is much good in the world at 
large, then there is no good reason why we should 
stand aloof from the world.” But what truth has 
never been abused? And it has never been the policy 
of the Christian church to hush up a truth because 
men did abuse it. Interesting enough, also the doc- 
trine of predestination, which is strongly stressed by 
certain opponents of the doctrine of common grace, 
is sometimes employed as a cloak for sin. Not infre- 


62 As To Being Reformed 


quently men say: “If I’m elected, I’ll go to heaven 
anyhow; and if I’m a reprobate, my salvation is out 
of the question. So what matters it how I live?” 


(4) The Christian Reformed Church not only is 
orthodox, but has shown repeatedly that it is firmly 
determined to remain orthodox. Splendid! What 
we need is not less of orthodoxy, but more of it. But 
is there not a possibility at least that we shall fall 
into the error of orthodoxism? If we should, history 
would only be repeating itself. Struggles for ortho- 
doxy. have often been succeeded by periods of ortho- 
doxism. 

Orthodoxy is essential to Christianity. Surely, 
one may err in certain points of doctrine and yet be 
a Christian. This can hardly be disputed. Any 
number of Methodists and Baptists are going to 
heaven. But there are some fundamental truths to 
which we must subscribe in order to merit the name 
of Christians. To mention just one, he who denies 
the Deity of Jesus Christ is not a Christian. 

But orthodoxy is not Christianity itself. Sound 
doctrine stands in much the same relation to Chris- 
tianity as do the bones of the body to the body itself. 
A body without bones is not thinkable. So Christian- 
ity is not possible without the truth. But the bones 
alone do not constitute the body; they make up a 
skeleton. Orthodoxy alone is a skeleton too. It is 
dead. 


Our fathers were wont to distinguish between his- 


As To Being Reformed 63 


torical and saving faith. The distinction is as sound 
as important. Historical faith is a mere intellectual 
acceptance of the truths of Holy Scripture without 
a change of heart. It is orthodoxy without Chris- 
tianity. Even the demons have it. During Jesus’ 
stay on earth they confessed him to be the Son of 
God. And James says: ‘Thou believest that there is 
one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and 
tremble.” 

The Christian not only believes all that the Bible 
says about God. That in itself is mere historical 
faith. But, as the Apostles’ Creed expresses it so 
precisely, he believes in God the Father, 7m God the 
Son, and 7x God the Holy Ghost. That is, he commits, 
entrusts, surrenders himself wholly to the Triune 
God. That is the very essence of Christianity. 

By the way, strictly speaking, the Christian does 
not believe in anything or anybody besides God. He 
believes a holy catholic church, for example, but he 
does not believe in it. And to be very precise, while 
he surely does believe the Bible, he does not believe 
in it in the same sense in which he believes in God. 
For him the Bible is indeed God’s infallible Word, 
but it is not his God. It is God’s means unto salva- 
tion, but it is not the Savior. 

And let it never be forgotten that the proof of 
saving faith is a life of love. If aman says he has 
faith, but does not lead a life of love, his faith is 
dead. ‘And though I have the gift of prophecy, and 
understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and 


64 As To Being Reformed 


though I have all faith, so that I could remove moun- 
tains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” 


(5) The Christian Reformed people on the whole 
have a profound respect for their Confessions. May 
that ever be the case! But God forbid that their 
regard for the Confessions should ever degenerate 
into Confessionalism. 

What a pity that not one of our men who in the 
last decade departed from the Confessions submitted 
his views in the proper way to the church for study! 
Bultema, for instance, instead of seeking to prop- 
agate his peculiar views, which are so manifestly 
out of harmony with the Standards, should have pre- 
sented them to the church with the request to apply 
to them the test of Scripture and, in case they should 
be found to be Scriptural, to modify the Confessions 
accordingly. Then the church would have been com- 
pelled to fall back upon the Bible, and, no matter to 
what conclusions it might have come, by so doing to 
express that the Bible stands above the Confessions. 
As it was, Bultema did no such thing, and all that 
the church had to do in order to dispose of his case 
was to appeal to the Confessions. 

I am afraid that in consequence at least a few of 
our people are under the impression that the author- 
ity of the Confessions in matters of doctrine is very 
nearly tantamount to that of Scripture itself. But 
that, of course, is confessionalism. 

The advisory committee which studied ‘ub the 
Danhof-Hoeksema case at the Synod of Kalamazoo 


As To Being Reformed 65 


deserves high praise, it seems to me, for disproving 
the erroneous views of these brethren not only from 
the Confessions and from the writings of leading Re- 
formed theologians, but from the Bible as well. 
Technically, it was not at all obliged to do that. But 
to do so was the part of wisdom. The danger of con- 
fessionalism was lessened. 


Let me state here parenthetically that I am sorry 
that the Janssen case could not be threshed out more 
thoroughly. If the church had gone to the very bot- 
tom of the matter, it would have come face to face 
with a most interesting and equally difficult ques- 
tion. Janssen’s method of teaching the Old Testa- 
ment was strongly apologetic. Now among the ablest 
Reformed theologians there are two widely divergent 
views on the value of Apologetics. In the December, 
1921, issue of Religion and Culture I called attention 
to the difference. We might speak of two schools: 
the Dutch, represented by such men as Kuyper and 
Bavinck, and the Scottish, with Orr, Beattie, and 
Warfield as its spokesmen. To put the matter very 
generally, the latter school makes a great deal more 
of Apologetics than does the former. Janssen, hav- 
ing been a pupil of Orr’s for some time, had strong 
leanings in that direction. Shall the church tolerate 
both views or must it choose between them? The 
Reverend G. H. Hospers of Ontario, N. Y., has 
sought to answer this question in a recent pamphlet. 
And the time may yet come when the church will 


66 As To Being Reformed 


have to give its answer. Scripture will have to be 
the norm. 


Some years ago I heard a noted Reformed theo- 
logian from the Netherlands, whose orthodoxy, so 
far as I know, has never been seriously questioned, 
say that in his teaching he considered himself bound 
by the Confessions in matters of doctrine, but not 
necessarily, to use his own words, “in exegeticis” or 
‘in isagogicis.” When he spoke of “in exegeticis,” 
he referred to such interpretations of Scripture as 
one given in Article 37 of the Belgic Confession, 
where “the books” which will be opened on judgment 
day are said to be “‘the consciences.” And the refer- 
ence of “in isagogicis’” was to Article 4, which 
assigns the authorship of Hebrews to Paul. The 
statement surprised me. I have often thought of it 
since. It still seems to me that this esteemed theo- 
logian took a perilous position. Or is it possible 
that he was right and that my vision is somewhat 
blurred by confessionalism? 


Of another matter I am quite certain. When our 
Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they in- 
tended that these documents should be revised from 
time to time with a view to heresies that might in the 
future arise, and in accordance with additional light 
on the truths of Scripture which the Holy Spirit 
might be pleased to give to the church. I believe that 
the time has come for us to do something along this 
line, even as the Reformed Churches of the Nether- 


As To Being Reformed 67 


lands have begun to do. I wonder whether we are 
ready. 


(6) I fear that we are in at least slight danger of 
falling prey to the evil of legalism. 


There has been some anarchy among us of late. 
Certain brethren flatly refused to submit to the 
authority of church assemblies in spite of the fact 
that they themselves had promised submission. 
Many of us justly resented this. But now there is 
danger that, in our displeasure, we shall lose sight 
of the fact that the authority of the church is purely 
spiritual. 

Classical minutes and Synodical Acta show that 
our church assemblies have in recent years been fre- 
quently compelled to act as courts. Let us not get the 
impression that they are courts primarily. Only in 
exceptional cases do they convene as courts. So far 
as possible, let us avoid calling them courts. The 
word suggests legalism. 

It has been suggested that Synod seek to stem the 
rising tide of worldliness among us by making cer- 
tain laws. While a limited number of rules and reg- 
ulations are necessary, it should be remembered that 
Synods are not exactly legislatures. It has always 
been Reformed policy scrupulously to avoid adding 
precept to precept. And let us not suppose that laws 
make men better. It takes God’s Spirit to do that. 

By all means let us avoid the sin of placing 
human usages and traditions on a level with divine 
ordinances. That were rank Pharisaism. It may 


68 As To Being Reformed 


look like piety, but it is sacrilege. Yet it is no exag- 
geration to say that there is a tendency in that direc- 
tion among us. In a plea for catechismal preaching 
a minister once made the admission that the Bible 
does not require it. A few members of the Christian 
Reformed church were somewhat alarmed. In a 
recent lecture I made a.mild plea for adding a few 
hymns to our Psalms for public worship. I was 
severely criticized. Experience has taught me that, 
while many of our people need to be admonished to 
keep the Sabbath, there are a number who may well 
be reminded of the Savior’s statement that the Sab- 
bath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 
“We reject all human inventions, and all laws, which 
men would introduce into the worship of God, 
thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any 
way whatever.”—Belgic Confession, Article 32. 


Of late it has become customary in Christian Re- 
formed circles to speak of Synodical interpretations 
of the Confessions, and these interpretations are 
regarded binding on the members of the church in 
the same degree as the Confessions themselves. Iam 
afraid that we are on a dangerous road. If we con- 
tinue to travel it, we shall get line upon line, precept 
upon precept. Let us not say, for example, that the 
Synod of Kalamazoo in the matter of common grace 
added an interpretation to the’ Confessions, but 
rather that it merely pointed out that certain breth- 
ren had contradicted the Confessions. On page 44 of 
his Reformed Pharisaism ? the Reverend K. Schilder 


As To Being Reformed 69 


boasts that, while some Presbyterian churches of 
Scotland and America have added interpretations to 
their Confessions, the Reformed Churches of the 
Netherlands have consistently refused to do this. 
Let us play safe by following the example of our 
Dutch mother! 


(7) Closely related to the peril of legalism is that 
of uniformity. 

In things indifferent; that is, in matters which are 
neither prescribed nor forbidden by the Bible, let us 
not try to bind one another. 

The great majority of our Christian Reformed 
churches do not have a choir. A few of our churches 
find that they can worship more acceptably with the 
aid of a choir. Why should they not have one? 


How broadminded, how tolerant, was the older 
generation of our Christian Reformed ministers! It 
was my good fortune to have one of them as my 
father. In the parental home I have overheard doc- 
trinal conversations by such men as Beuker, Boer, 
Hemkes, the Broenes, Hulst, Van Hoogen, Van Goor, 
Vander Werp, to mention no more. How they dif- 
fered! How frankly they discussed their differ- 
ences! Some of the views which they expressed 
would today surely elicit the cry of “Wolf!” in our 
circles. But they were no heresy-hunters. Most of 
them had hearts as big as hams. 

In its zeal for purity of doctrine, let the Christian 
Reformed Church beware lest it bring upon itself 
the curse of uniformity. It may never be forgotten 


70 As To Being Reformed 


that faithfulness to the Standards is perfectly con- 
sistent with differences of opinion on extra-confes- 
sional matters. The church which loses sight of this 
is a sure candidate for petrifaction. 


In conclusion I must indicate how the aforenamed 
perils may be avoided. One word says it all. That 
word is Spirituality. 

If we are led by the Spirit of truth, we shall avoid 


the pitfall of Modernism and the one-sidedness of 
Fundamentalism. 


If we are controlled by the Spirit of holiness, we 
shall flee from the sin of worldliness. 


If we have the Spirit of Christ, we shall be, not 
merely orthodox, but Christian as well, and thus 
escape orthodoxism. 


If the Spirit of God dwells in us, we shall ever 
esteem God’s Word more highly than that of the 
church and so steer clear of confessionalism. 


If God’s free Spirit be ours, we shall be free from 
the sin of legalism. 


And, paradoxical though it may seem, if we all 
have one Spirit, we shall differ from each other and 
yet agree. With diversity in form we shall “keep 
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” 

There 1s nothing that the Christian Reformed 
Church needs quite so much as a spiritual revival. 


Modernism and Fundamentalism 


Hii 
Rt | i 


4 


' ROS s:$ 


ee 


=_ eS * 


ia 
— 
- 





GHAR eb nV. 
MODERNISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM 


HE Reformed Church in America and the Chris- 

tian Reformed Church are pretty well agreed in 

their attitude toward the Fundamentalist-Modernist 
controversy. 

How I wish that for pretty well I might substi- 
tute perfectly! But I cannot do that with complete 
honesty. The reason was already suggested, and will 
appear again in the following chapter. Suffice it 
now to say that pretty well expresses exactly how 
I have the situation sized up. 

Both denominations, generally speaking, are down 
on Modernism. How very true that is of the Chris- 
tian Reformed Church appears from the fact that 
it proceeded to the deposition of a professor of theo- 
logy whose teaching appeared to do violence to the 
doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture, 
in spite of his repeated protestations that he sub- 
scribed to this truth as wholeheartedly as anybody. 
It is not so generally known, but equally true, that a 
couple of years ago the young minister of an eastern 
Reformed church was summarily discharged when 
it appeared that he called into question the virgin 
birth. The weekly papers of both churches have 
denounced Modernism in very certain terms. Neither 


74 As To Being Reformed 


church is torn by Fundamentalist-Modernist strife, 
as are so many American Protestant denominations. 


What else could be expected? Modernism is per- 
fectly despicable. Instead of being modern, it is only 
a revival of time-worn heresies. Any serious stu- 
dent of history ought to see almost at a glance that 
it is away behind the times. How much there is in it 
of seventeenth-century Socinianism and eighteenth- 
century Rationalism! Instead of being liberal, it is 
narrow to the point of intolerance and bigotry. It 
would sneer Fundamentalism out of court. Instead 
of being scholarly, as it claims to be, it betrays at 
almost every turn unpardonable ignorance of the 
teachings of historical Christianity. Just to illus- 
trate: in Chapter Three of Christianity and Modern 
Thought, Dr. Richard 8. Lull of Yale University 
writes: “Mr. Bryan’s text, In His Image, based upon 
a deep and widespread conviction that man was 
created in the physical image of his Maker, pictures 
God the Infinite in terms of a finite being.”” Whata 
caricature of the orthodox position! Yet Mr. Lull 
is manifestly in earnest. He does not mean to joke. 


Modernism is damnable. It would knock the 
props from under the Christian religion by denying 
the infallibility of the Scriptures. It would tear the 
very heart out of Christianity by labeling the doc- 
trine of the vicarious atonement “theology of the 
butcher shop.” It would demolish the foundation of 
the Christian church by placing the divinity of 
Christ on a level with that of man. It would force 


As To Being Reformed 75 


Christian ethics by foisting upon simple men and 
women and children a false theology couched in 
terms of the only true. It would pluck the crown 
from the all-glorious head of the Christ himself 
by assigning to him a place—the first, to be sure— 
in a class with Buddha and Confucius. It would 
annihilate the one religion that can make men happy 
now and eternally by denying at every turn the 
supernatural. 

Can a Modernist go to heaven? Differently ex- 
pressed, can a Modernist be a Christian? That ques- 
tion is frequently asked nowadays. It requires some 
sort of answer. 


Let us be guarded in our reply. It is usually a 
precarious thing for one man to pass judgment on 
another’s salvation or damnation. Many well-mean- 
ing Christians are altogether too hasty about this. 
Let each one look out for himself in the first place. 
When asked whether few would be saved, the Lord 
replied: “Do you strive to enter in at the narrow 
gate, for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in 
and will not be able.” Besides, the subject of the 
relation of orthodoxy to Christianity is as difficult 
as itis big. It is generally agreed that one may be 
off at least a few shades on orthodoxy and yet be 
saved. Fortunate for you and for me! We are off 
a little. Everybody is. Nobody’s theology is alto- 
gether free from error and perfectly pure. 


But it is possible to draw a line somewhere. Did 
not Paul command Titus: “A man that is a heretic 


76 As To Being Reformed 


after the first and second admonition reject; know- 
ing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, 
being condemned of himself”? And did not the same 
apostle make bold to declare: “But though we, or 
an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto 
you than that which we have preached unto you, let 
him be accursed’? 

Apart from the question, which particular theory 
of inspiration is correct, it must be said that he who 
rejects the Bible as God’s inspired Word thereby 
gives evidence that he has not received the Holy 
Spirit. Everybody who, having been born of the 
Spirit, is a child of God, recognizes his Father’s voice 
in Holy Writ. Again, the doctrine of the Deity of 
Jesus Christ may well be called the shibboleth of 
Christianity. ‘He is Antichrist, that denieth the 
Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, 
the same hath not the Father.” Once more, he that 
trusts for salvation in character rather than in the 
atonement—and this seems to be characteristic of 
Modernism—is building on sinking sand, which is 
sure to give way when the storm of judgment is 
unleashed. 

What has just been said about Modernism will 
strike the reader as being so very obvious, I trust, 
that further enlargement is unnecessary. But now 
we come to something which is not so apparent at 
first blush. Fuller elucidation is required. 


I hope the reader will not be so naive as to infer 
from the denunciation of Modernism by the Re- 


As To Being Reformed 77 


formed and Christian Reformed denominations, that 
these churches have sworn unreserved allegiance to 
the cause of Fundamentalism. That is not the case. 


Both adhere, generally speaking, to the fundamen- 
tal teachings of the Christian religion, which are best 
expressed by the Apostles’ Creed. But neither 
church is found bodily in the Fundamentalist camp. 
They stand for fundamentalism alright, but not alto- 
gether for “Fundamentalism.” They cannot be 
classed as “Fundamentalist churches” with the con- 
notation which this term has through usage acquired. 


The objection which the Reformed or Calvinistic 
Christian has to Fundamentalism may, I believe, be 
stated in these few words: there is in it a rather 
pronounced strain of Anabaptism. 

Says the great Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck 
in his lecture on Common Grace: ‘““The after-effects 
of Anabaptism are noticeable not only in Mennonit- 
ism, but also in Labadism, Pietism, and Herrnhut- 
ism of Continental Europe, and in English and 
American Independentism and the Baptist groups, 
in Quakerism and Methodism.’ Note that he men- 
tions the Baptists and Methodists. Are not these the 
names of our two largest Protestant denominations? 
And is it not true that the spirit of Methodism per- 
vades almost all the Protestant churches of Amer- 
ica? ‘ 

This is not the place for a thorough study of Ana- 
baptism. But let me call attention briefly to at least 


78 , As To Being Reformed 


a couple of evidences of the working of Anabaptistic 
leaven in American Fundamentalism. 

Anabaptism stands for Premillennialism. Our 
Fundamentalist churches have placed the teaching 
of the premillennial return of Christ on the list of 
fundamental Christian doctrines. He who will not 
subscribe to it is, to say the least, suspected of lean- 
ings toward Modernism. 

Perhaps the most general characteristic of Ana- 
baptism is that it teaches a dualism of nature and 
grace, of the natural and the supernatural. It denies 
that the two can be harmonized. It even drives a 
wedge in between them. And then it proceeds to 
extol the supernatural at the expense of the natural; 
or, to put it more precisely, it underestimates nature 
in favor of grace. Much the same thing, I fear, is 
true of present-day Fundamentalism. 


Let me offer some concrete evidence. 

How very poor a showing many a Fundamentalist 
has made in an argument with a Modernist! This, 
I fear, is not accidental. The Fundamentalists do not 
value sufficiently a broad liberal education as the 
foundation of theological training. Every once in a 
while a Fundamentalist betrays his ignorance of the 
distinction between mechanical and organic inspira- 
tion and fails to do justice to the human element 
in the writing of the Scriptures. How wary many 
Fundamentalists are of admitting that God fre- 
quently employs natural means in performing mir- 
acles, in themselves supernatural. Who has never 


As To Being Reformed 79 


heard a Fundamentalist speak of the catastrophe 
which is to end this dispensation as a destruction of 
the present order of things, to be followed by an en- 
tirely new creation, rather than an act of purification 
issuing in the restoration of all things? And would 
not many a well-meaning but short-sighted teacher of 
Christianity hesitate to admit that the student who 
neglects his Aristotle in order to engage in city mis- 
sion work may for all that be a poorer Christian 
than his roommate who makes so thorough a study 
of this pagan philosopher that he has no time left for 
evangelical work; that the business man who bungles 
his income tax return in order to attend prayer-meet- 
ing is not necessarily more spiritual than another 
who is so scrupulously exact about the same piece of 
work that he fails to hear the striking of the sweet 
hour of prayer; and that the woman who is rearing 
so large a family that she has little or no time left 
for church work may well receive a richer reward in 
heaven than her sister without children who is presi- 
dent of the Ladies’ Aid or the Ladies’ Missionary 
Society ? 

And now I must call attention to a very remark- 
able phenomenon. Bavinck points it out in the lec- 
ture already referred to in this chapter. The issue 
between the Modernists and the Fundamentalists 
may be expressed by the one word supernatural. 
The thorough-going Modernist denies the supernat- 
ural, as, for instance, the inspiration of the Scrip- 


80 As To Being Reformed 


tures, the virgin birth of Jesus and his bodily resur- 
rection, the miracles in general, and the regenerating 
work of the Holy Spirit; while the Fundamentalist 
clings to the supernatural tooth and nail. Of course, 
the Fundamentalist is right, the Modernist dead 
wrong. And yet, very, very strange to say, both pro- 
ceed from essentially the same erroneous principle. 
Both deny that the supernatural and the natural 
can be harmonized. So the Modernist throws over- 
board the supernatural, while many a Fundamental- 
ist fails to do justice to the natural. 


The Reformed position is quite another. It gives 
just as full recognition to the supernatural as any 
Fundamentalist can. At the same time it highly 
exalts the natural by maintaining that it too is of 
God. And while it does not claim for a moment that 
paltry human reason can harmonize the two, it does 
believe that somewhere they meet, embrace, and kiss 
each other. Says the learned Bavinck in his Re- 
formed Dogmatics: “On the stand-point of Scripture, 
all revelation, also that in nature, is supernatural.’”’— 
Volume I, page 817. “And even supernatural reve- 
lation is not at variance with nature, for every man 
in his inmost being is a supernaturalist and believes 
in a direct working of God in this world.—Volume I, 
page 377. 

Where then does the Reformed Christian stand? 

He denounces Modernism. 

He esteems the Fundamentalist as a brother in 
Christ and gladly fights shoulder to shoulder with 


As To Being Reformed 81 


him for the fundamental truths of our supernatural 
religion. But he keenly regrets his companion’s 
errors and does not hesitate to point them out in the 
spirit of love. 


In his opposition to Modernism he is controlled 
by the conviction that Calvinism, not Fundamental- 
ism, is at once its real antipode and its effective anti- 
dote. 


} Ni 

ath 
wt 
oy 


4 Th hs WAT IY 


7 Uy Oy We, © i Li. 
; ei hy Firs 
aS oF 
, hi 
Pe i 
‘ 


im } 
Lah oer 
if Ny 


ahha ie ie 


gay Lm 


} . 
Pe a ee 


3 


ee . 
oe fi 
4 





Christianity and Calvinism 





OrbAy Bloke av as 
CHRISTIANITY AND CALVINISM 


T IS often asked: ‘Is it worth while to be a Cal- 
vinist? Does it not suffice to be a Christian? If 
only I make sure of being a disciple of Jesus Christ, 
do I need to bother about being a follower of John 
Calvin? Granted that I am an adherent of the Chris- 
tian religion, is it of any real value that I subscribe 
to that particular interpretation of it which was 
sponsored especially by the Genevan reformer? 
Compared with the fundamental doctrines of ortho- 
dox Christianity, are not the five points of Calvinism 
quite insignificant?” 
I am going to give an answer to such questioning. 
That there are hosts of very fine Christian men 
and women outside the Reformed fold is so obvious 
a truth that it seems almost foolish to say so. And 
the most partisan Calvinist will grant readily that 
it is far more important to be a Christian than to 
be a Calvinist. Nay, the intelligent Calvinist will 
not even express himself thus. In view of the match- 
less glory of the Christ, the latchet of whose sandals 
John Calvin is not worthy, kneeling down, to loose, 
he resents the very suggestion of thus comparing Cal- 
vinism with Christianity. He is not a Christian in 
the first place, a Calvinist in the second. He would 
be a Christian first and last and always. 


86 As To Being Reformed 


Let no one infer that it is of little value to be 
specifically Reformed. I verily believe that it is a 
matter of stupendous importance. 


It is thought quite generally that such interpreta- 
tions of Christianity as Lutheranism, Methodism, 
and Calvinism, to enumerate no more, are all of them 
about equally valid, that the difference is almost 
entirely one of emphasis, that it is well that each 
stresses certain points which the others fail to stress 
sufficiently, and that, in choosing among them, one 
may safely be guided by taste, temperament, and 
tradition. 

It must be granted that there is an element of 
truth in this reasoning. The most ardent Calvinist, 
for instance, can hardly maintain that his interpre- 
tation of the Christian religion is perfectly full- 
orbed, and that no other interpretation contains 
aught to supplement it. And yet with the chief con- 
tention of this presentation of the matter I cannot 
agree at all. 


Says Dr. B. B. Warfield in his article Calvinism 
in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge: “Calvinism is not a specific variety of 
theism, religion, evangelicalism, set over against 
other specific varieties, which along with it constitute 
these several genera, and which possess equal rights 
of existence with it and make similar claims to per- 
fection, each after its own kind. It differs from 
them not as one species differs from other species; 
but as a perfectly developed representative differs 


As To Being Reformed 87 


from an imperfectly developed representative of the 
same species. There are not many kinds of theism, 
religion, evangelicalism, among which men are at 
liberty to choose to suit at will their individual taste 
or meet their special need, all of which may be pre- 
sumed to serve each its own specific uses equally 
OTE TL Vay musi a oh ite Ve Calvinism conceives of itself 
as simply the more pure theism, religion, evangelical- 
ism, superseding as such the less pure.” 


Let me express the same thought in language less 
Warfieldian. Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Method- 
ism cannot be represented in their relation to each 
other by three perfectly good apples of different 
varieties; say a Northern Spy, a Baldwin, and a 
Jonathan. If so, it would be a matter purely of taste 
which one should choose. I prefer the Spy; but it 
would be perfectly foolish for me to start an argu- 
ment with my neighbor who may chance to like 
the Baldwin better. He has as much right to his 
preference as have I to mine. Matters of taste are 
hardly debatable. A good Jonathan is as good in 
its kind as is a good Spy in its kind. But, as was 
said, this illustration does not fill the bill. Calvin- 
ism, Lutheranism, and Methodism may well be com- 
pared to three apples of the same variety, whether 
Spy, Baldwin, Jonathan, or any other. But these 
three apples, while all of the same kind, are not 
equally good. The two representing Lutheranism 
and Methodism are more or less spotted, even worm- 


88 As To Being Reformed 


eaten perhaps. The one which stands for Calvin- 
ism is a pretty nearly perfect specimen. 


Or let us say that three archers are shooting at 
a target. They are respectively a Lutheran, a Metho- 
dist, and a Calvinist. Is it so that the arrows of the 
three strike the target at different places, the first 
above, the second below, and the third to the right 
of the center, but all at equal distances from the 
bull’s eye? Not at all. But this is the case: the 
Calvinist hits the bull’s eye pretty squarely, while 
his two companions hit the target alright, but not 
the bull’s eye. 

In a word, Calvinism is the most nearly perfect 
interpretation of Christianity. In final analysis, 
Calvinism and Christianity are practically synony- 
mous. 

It follows that he who departs from Calvinism is 
taking a step away from Christianity; that he who 
ignores specifically Reformed doctrine is endanger- 
ing his doctrinal position as a Christian; that he 
who lets go of the five points of Calvinism is slipping 
in the direction of Modernism. 

Here let: me quote a very bold statement from 
Dr. Warfield’s article on Calvinism. Presumptuous 
though it may seem, it is absolutely correct. “It may 
be contended that the future, as the past, of Chris- 
tianity itself is bound up with the fortunes of Cal- 
vinism.”’ 

An illustration is in order. The basic principle 
of Calvinism, of course, is the sovereignty of God. 


As To Being Reformed 89 


And one of the most beloved teachings of evangel- 
ical Christianity generally is that of salvation by 
grace. But how very evident that the two stand 
and fall together! Salvation by grace is but a 
corollary of the sovereignty of God. The Calvinist 
says that God in his sovereign good pleasure elected 
certain men unto eternal life. Therefore he gives 
to these at some time during their life on earth 
the grace of regeneration, by which naturally dead 
sinners are made alive. This grace, and it alone, ac- 
counts for their acceptance of the Christ and his 
benefits by faith. That is real sovereignty and real 
grace. But the Arminian Methodist at best says that 
God elected certain men to eternal life, not in his sov- 
erelgn good pleasure, but because he foresaw that 
they would believe. The natural man is not dead 
spiritually, only sick, and not too sick to accept of his 
own free will God’s offer of salvation in the Christ. 
Manifestly that is neither sovereignty nor grace. 
The Arminian begins by qualifying divine sover- 
elonty; he ends up by taking much of the grace out 
of grace. According to him the Savior is indeed a 
gift of God’s grace, but the sinner’s acceptance of 
the Savior is not due solely to divine grace. But is 
it not obvious that he thus comes dangerously near 
to Liberalism? One of the characteristic teachings 
of present-day Modernists is that man, with the aid 
of divine influence, becomes his own savior. 


In view of the foregoing, I am less surprised than 
grieved to find in the Reformed Church in America 


90 As To Being Reformed 


an inclination toward Modernism. What else can 
be expected? Simon-pure Calvinism is being neg- 
lected. The five points of Calvinism are gradually 
allowed to go by the board. And thus it becomes 
inevitable that generally Christian doctrines should 
suffer. 

I have already called attention to it that Dr. Wor- 
cester shows a tendency to depart from some of the 
fundamentals. About that no more need be said. 
But some additional] evidence is in order. 


Said the Reverend E. C. Vanderlaan in the Novem- 
ber 28, 1925, issue of The Christian Intelligencer: 
“One does not want to make reckless assertions about 
Modernism, for there is no way of finding out how 
many Modernists there may be in our church.” 


Dr. William Bancroft Hill, President of the 1925 
General Synod of the Reformed Church in America, 
in a sermon delivered before that body made this 
statement, according to The Leader of June 17: “But 
J am not leading up to a discussion of the Funda- 
mentalist and the Modernist. We have both, I doubt 
not, in our denomination; and each causes the other 
pain; but thus far, thank God, they have borne 
patiently with one another, each considering the 
other a weak brother who should not be made to 
stumble because for him Christ died. May this spirit 
of brotherly charity continue, as I trust it will, until 
both gain fully the insight of John.” 

Every once in a while one hears it said in Chris- 
tian Reformed circles that this is no time for insist- 


As To Being Reformed 91 


ing on the niceties of Calvinism, that now we should 
bring all our strength to bear on the maintenance 
of the fundamentals of Christianity itself. Without 
questioning the good intentions of those who speak 
thus, I want to say that this line of talk is super- 
ficial, misleading even, and hence dangerous. It is 
always time to insist on Calvinism of the purest 
brand. ‘‘Obsta principiis!’”’ ‘Withstand beginnings!’ 
Add water to the wine of Reformed doctrine, and 
you have begun to weaken your Christianity. For 
in last instance the fundamentals of Calvinism are 
also the fundamentals of the Christian religion. 


I want to conclude this chapter on Christianity 
and Calvinism by registering the belief that every 
true Christian, whatever label he may bear, is at 
heart a Calvinist. He may not call himself a Cal- 
vinist; he may even resent being called by this name; 
_his thinking may be far from consistently Reformed ; 
yet, in final analysis he is Reformed. 


May not a Calvinist be described as a person who 
lives in utter dependence on God? But also the 
Arminian Christian humbly recognizes his depend- 
ence when engaged in the act of prayer. There is 
truth in the oft repeated saying that an Arminian 
is a Calvinist when on his knees before God. Is it 
not the glory of Reformed theology that it has held 
with unwavering consistency to the doctrine of sal- 
vation by grace? But also our Methodist brethren 
and sisters sing very heartily of being “Saved by 
Grace.” The Calvinist aims in all his living at the 


92 As To Being Reformed 


glory of God. But may not much the same thing be 
said of every one who truly knows and loves God? 
Surely every Christian loves God above all else. Will 
he then not as a matter of course seek to live wholly 
for God? 

To quote Dr. Warfield, that eminent American 
Calvinist, once more: ‘Whoever believes in God; 
whoever recognizes in the recesses of his soul his 
utter dependence on God; whoever in all his thoughts 
of salvation hears in his heart of hearts the echo 
of the soli Deo gloria of the evangelical profession— 
by whatever name he may call himself, or by what- 
ever intellectual puzzles his logical understanding 
may be confused—Calvinism recognizes as implicitly 
a Calvinist, and as only requiring to permit these 
fundamental principles—which underlie and give its 
body to all true religion—to work themselves freely 
and fully out in thought and feeling and action, to 
become explicitly a Calvinist.” 


The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination 


eat ae te 


x e 


iW eke 

SONNET b> vie t 
FAW ah SP 
DRA EER 

eh Ae A 
at) 42d ve By 

Glos Ped eh ae 
Dh f 


teh i 


CER ae r ; Wey 

Pia yy iy + 
uf G i 16 an Pee 
ee hd ee ol 
; 4 it, 


Jie od 
Fs ih ‘ ne at 
As Ties y 





CH ASP ikeeiV LD: 
THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION 


HILE it is beside the purpose of this book to 

give an exposition of Reformed doctrine, yet I 
feel that a few remarks on the doctrine of predestina- 
tion are called for. 

This doctrine may well be called the hall-mark of 
Calvinism. To be sure, it is not its formative prin- 
ciple, the root from which its springs. The sov- 
erelonty of God is that. But it is the most direct 
logical consequence of this principle. God’s sov- 
ereignty reveals itself most manifestly in predes- 
tination. 

Now this distinctively Reformed doctrine is ex- 
ceedingly unpopular today. Those who are willing 
to subscribe to it have become few indeed. It is the 
butt of many a joke in would-be-theological circles. 
Several churches which are Reformed in name 
largely ignore it. Not a few members of the Re- 
formed Church in America reject it. Some members 
of the Christian Reformed Church too are begin- 
ning to question it. 

I believe it is high time that this doctrine be re- 
asserted. If it is not, I am afraid that Calvinism 
will well nigh perish from the land. 

The Bible teaches plainly in several places that 


96 As To Being Reformed 


already in eternity, before the world was, God chose 
or elected from the human race which was to be 
created, some unto eternal life, and passed by, and 
thus virtually rejected, the others. That is a simple 
statement of the doctrine of predestination. The 
reader may check up on it by referring to such pas- 
gages as Romans 8:29, 30; Ephesians 1:4, 5; I Thes- 
salonians 1:4; I Peter 1:2; I Peter 2:7-9. 


We come at once to a point of unusual importance. 
It may be called the crux of the whole matter. One 
might subscribe to the doctrine as stated in the pre- 
vious paragraph without yet being Reformed. Many 
an Arminian would raise no objection to it at all. 
But the question arises why God chose some and not 
others. The Arminian replies that God was guided 
by his foreknowledge, that he chose some because he 
saw beforehand that they would believe the Gospel 
and rejected others because he knew that they would 
not do so. The Calvinist, on the other hand, main- 
tains that God was guided by nothing but his own 
good pleasure, his sovereign, free will. That is the 
very heart of the Reformed doctrine of absolute pre- 
destination. 


To put the difference between the Reformed and 
the Arminian views of predestination succinctly: 
according to the former, faith is the fruit of election; 
according to the latter, faith is the ground of elec- 
tion; according to the former, the ground of election 
lies in God; according to the latter, the ground of 
election lies in man. 


As To Being Reformed 97 


It is not at all difficult to show that the Reformed 
doctrine of absolute predestination is Biblical. Ephe- 
sians 1:4, 5 teaches it plainly. Writes the apostle: 
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the 
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and 
without blame before him in love; having predesti- 
nated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus 
Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of 
his will.” With almost startling boldness the apostle 
prociaims the same truth in Romans 9. Everybody 
who calls the doctrine into question should by all 
means read this chapter as a whole. I quote but a 
few verses. “So then it is not of him that willeth, 
nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth 
mercy.’—vs. 16. “Therefore hath he mercy on whom 
he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” 
—vs. 18. “Hath not the potter power over the clay, 
of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and 
another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to 
shew his wrath, and to make his power known, en- 
dured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath 
fitted to destruction; and that he might make known 
the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which 
he hath afore prepared unto glory ?’’—vss. 21-23. 

The Reformed doctrine of predestination is very 
generally misunderstood today. It is often identified 
with philosophic determinism or Mohammedan fatal- 
ism. Now I do believe that sometimes individuals 
who call themselves Reformed, and even boast of 
their strict Calvinism, fall into the error of de- 


98 As To Being Reformed 


terminism or fatalism. But it is exceedingly unfair 
to charge this error to the account of Calvinism 
itself. 


Let me mention just two points of difference be- 
tween fatalism and Calvinism. Fate is an imper- 
sonal, cold, hard, relentless force, but the God of the 
Calvinist is a personal being with love as his very 
essence, good in many ways even to the reprobate. 
And while fatalism leaves no room for the freedom 
of the human will, Calvinism teaches that the will 
of man is indeed not altogether free, controlled as it 
is by the heart, which in the case of the unregen- 
erated is evil, so that he cannot will spiritual good, 
but it is free to this extent that no outside force 
compels it. 


It may be well to meet a few objections that are 
commonly raised against our doctrine. At the very 
outset it should be realized that we are face to face 
with a mystery. Far be it from us to claim that we 
can remove every difficulty by human logic! We 
frankly admit that we cannot. But this does not 
perturb us. How can we with our finite and cor- 
rupted intellects expect to comprehend the infinite 
God? We ought to be exceedingly grateful to have 
a God who is far too great for us to understand. 
“And therefore with holy adoration of these myster- 
ies, we exclaim in the words of the apostle: ‘O 
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowl- 
edge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, 


As To Being Reformed 99 


and his ways past finding out!’ ”—Canons of Dordt, 
I, 18. 

The decree of reprobation “by no means makes 
God the author of sin (the very thought of which is 
blasphemy) but declares him to be an awful, irrepre- 
hensible, and righteous judge and avenger thereof.” 
—Canons of Dordt, I, 15. 


It is often said that the doctrine of reprobation 
makes God unjust, tyrannical, cruel, since, according 
to it, he sentenced certain men to everlasting perdi- 
tion long before they had the opportunity to do either 
good or evil. 

Several attempts have been made to answer this 
charge. For example, it has been said that in the 
decree of predestination God regarded man as having 
fallen, and consequently he would have been perfectly 
just in sentencing all men to eternal torment. This 
is in harmony with the so-called infralapsarian view 
ef predestination, which is plainly taught in the 
Canons when it is said that God chose ‘‘from the 
whole human race, which had fallen through their 
own fault, from their primitive state of rectitude, 
into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons 
to redemption in Christ.”—I, 7. 


The Bible gives a pointed reply to the charge of 
injustice on the part of God in the decree of repro- 
bation. This reply, while not intended to satisfy 
human reason, is absolutely conclusive. Having 
illustrated election and reprobation by the cases of 
Jacob and Esau, the former of whom God loved, 


100 As To Being Reformed 


while he hated the latter, ‘‘the children being not yet 
born, neither having done any good or evil,’ Paul 
raises the question: “What shall we say then? Is 
there unrighteousness with God?’ What is his 
reply? “God forbid!’ And then follows a simple 
appeal to the divine sovereignty. ‘For he saith to 
Moses: ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have 
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will 
have compassion.’ ”’”—Romans 9:11-15. This appeal 
should silence all opposition. 


Once in a while some such reasoning as the follow- 
ing is heard: “If I am elected unto eternal life, I will 
get to heaven in the end, no matter how I live now; 
and if I am one of the reprobate, I am sure to go 
to hell, no matter how hard I strive to enter in by ° 
the narrow gate. So what am I going to do about 
it? I might as well eat and drink and be merry and 
ignore the whole matter of my salvation.” This line 
of talk involves the charge that divine predestina- 
tion rules out human responsibility. 


While we do not flatter ourselves with the hope of 
harmonizing these two teachings of Scripture before 
the bar of human reason, it is not at all difficult to 
point out a serious flaw in the reasoning just in- 
dicated. The fact is overlooked that God fore- 
ordained not only a certain end, but also the means 
by which this end would be reached. God determined 
not merely that a given farmer would harvest a 
thousand bushels of wheat in the summer of 1926, 
but that he would obtain this harvest by fertilizing, 


As To Being Reformed 101 


plowing, and sowing. The means and the end are 
inseparable. The farmer who fails to make the 
necessary preparations is going to have no harvest. 
In precisely the same way God determined not merely 
that a certain individual would inherit the rest of 
heaven, but that he would get there through laboring 
to enter in. Here too let man not put asunder what 
God has joined together. He who attempts it will 
lose his soul. 


Again we refer to Romans 9. Already in the days 
of Paul there were those who argued that predes- 
tionation, in particular reprobation, left no room for 
human responsibility. And the apostle answered 
also this charge not by argument, but by an appeal to 
divine sovereignty. ‘‘Thou wilt say then unto me, 
“Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted 
his will?? Nay but, O man, who art thou that re- 
pliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to 
him that formed it, ‘Why hast thou made me thus?’ ”’ 
—vss. 19, 20. “The Lord is in his holy temple, let 
all the earth keep silence before him.”’ 


As it is impossible for us petty men to square with 
one another divine predestination and human re- 
sponsibility, so no one has ever succeeded in fully 
harmonizing the decree of reprobation with the 
Sincere offer of salvation which God makes to sin- 
ners in general and which he is pleased to have them 
accept, since he has no pleasure in the death of the 
wicked but therein that the wicked turn from his 
evil ways and live. 


102 As To Being Reformed 


But what of it? Both are unmistakably taught in 
Scripture. The same Jesus who declared: “No man 
can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, 
draw him”’—John 6:44—, wailed over the city of 
Jerusalem: “How often would I have gathered thy 
children together as a hen doth gather her brood 
under her wings, and ye would not!”—Luke 13:34. 
And how much there is in divine revelation that far 
transcends human reason! The thing for us to do is 
to bow in humble adoration and say: ‘“‘Lord, we fail 
to understand, but we believe because thou sayest 
it.” And then let us beware of stressing either truth 
at the expense of the other. To emphasize God’s 
good pleasure in the sinner’s salvation at the expense 
of reprobation leads unavoidably to Arminianism. 
To do the reverse leads to heresy just as repre- 
hensible. 


Almost all the objections that men are wont to 
make to predestination concern reprobation rather 
than election. Now let me add that the best Reformed 
theologians have ever been too well balanced to co- 
ordinate these two phases of our doctrine. Says 
Bavinck in his Dogmatics: “The highest form of the 
eternal plan is God’s decree concerning the revela- 
tion of his perfections in the eternal glorious state of 
his rational creatures. To it reprobation is wholly 
subordinate. It is the dark reverse over against 
which election stands forth most brilliantly.”—Vol- 
ume II, page 417. 


As To Being Reformed 103 


Something must be said about the proper use of 
this doctrine. 


It is not wise greatly to trouble the unsaved about 
it. They should be told of Paul’s reply to the jailer’s 
question, what he had to do to be saved: ‘‘Believe in 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” 
But those who are saved through faith in the Christ 
may find unspeakable comfort in it. 


Let me use an old illustration. We often speak 
of the house of salvation. Among other things a 
house has a foundation and a door. Of this house 
election is the foundation, Christ is the door. Those 
who are still without should be pointed to the door. 
Surely, it is well when describing the house to them 
in the invitation to enter, also to call their attention 
to the strength of its foundation. Yet they should be 
told not to attempt to enter in by way of the founda- 
tion, but through the door. But once they are inside, 
what comfort, what peace, what joy, may they not 
derive from the knowledge that the house of their 
salvation stands absolutely secure on the unmoveable 
foundation of God’s eternal decree! “The founda- 
tion of God standeth sure, having this seal: the Lord 
knoweth them that are his.” He has known them 
from eternity. 

There are many teachers of religion who, while 
professing belief in the doctrine of predestination, 
yet virtually ignore it. “This truth,” say they, “is 
of academic interest rather than practical. Then 
why bother the ordinary church-member about it? 


104 As To Being Reformed 


There is even a danger that he will abuse it. It has 
been known to ‘make men careless and profane.’ ” 
Over against this attitude I would emphasize the 
great necessity of preaching predestination. 


The whole system of Reformed doctrine stands or 
falls with predestination. It is the foundation. 
Break it away, and the superstructure will topple 
into ruins. It was no accident, but the result of log- 
ical reasoning, that the Arminians denied the other 
four points of Calvinism as well as absolute predes- 
tination. Particular redemption, total depravity, 
irresistible grace, and the perseverance of saints are 
corollaries of this dogma. Absolute predestination 
then is the shibboleth of the Reformed faith. By 
denying it one loses all claim to the name Reformed 
as well as to a place in a Reformed church. Just as 
soon as we decide to shelve this doctrine, we may as 
well go out of business as Reformed churches and 
combine with other bodies of Christians. 


. One of the logical conclusions of predestination is 
the perseverance of saints. Who dares to deny prac- 
tical value to this doctrine? The comfort alone which 
it gives far exceeds in value all the gold and silver, 
the precious stones and pearls, of the earth and its 
seas. The assurance which it offers is thrice blessed 
indeed. Dispelling worry, it liberates the powers of 
the soul for service in the kingdom. The solid joy 
which it yields may well stir in those outside the 
kingdom a holy jealousy and an ardent zeal to enter 
in; yea, to “take it by force.” 


As To Being Reformed 105 


How very evident that with the dogma of predes- 
tination is bound up inseparably that doctrine which 
lies at the very heart of evangelical Christianity: 
salvation by grace. Begin with absolute predestina- 
tion, reason on, and you are driven irresistibly to the 
conclusion that the sinner is saved by free mercy. 
Begin with salvation by grace, reason backward, and 
you cannot help concluding that the sovereign God 
for reasons in himself determined to save certain 
sinners. Absolute predestination is an absolutely 
essential element in evangelical religion. Without 
it its central truth of complete dependence on the 
grace of God cannot be maintained. Begin to moder- 
ate it; say, for instance, that God chose certain in- 
dividuals unto eternal life because he foresaw that 
they would believe in Christ, and you have already 
denied salvation by pure grace. Therefore it is not 
surprising to find that practically all the sixteenth- 
century Reformers were a unit on this matter. 
Luther and Melanchton, even Butzer, as well as 
Zwingli and Calvin, were jealous for absolute pre- 
destination. Dr. Warfield is authority for the state- 
ment that “it underlay and gave its form and power 
to the whole Reformation movement.” 


Calvinists often speak of “the glory of God.” The 
genuine Calvinist lives unto God’s glory. No won- 
der! He realizes that it is God who has chosen him 
and not he who has chosen God, that God chose him 
sovereignly and not at all because he deserved it in 
any way, and that the whole process of his salvation 


106 As To Being Reformed 


from start to finish is due to this choice of God. 
Otherwise expressed, God does not merely make 
salvation possible by giving his Son and then help 
man to save himself through the influence of his © 
Spirit, but God actually saves. Then, of course, God 
gets all the honor. “For of him, and through him, 
and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for 
ever. Amen!” “Soli Beo Gloria!’’ 


The Importance of the Doctrine of 
Common Grace for the Church of Today 


te is ty i 


» 





CHAPTER VIII. 


THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF COMMON 
GRACE FOR THE CHURCH OF TODAY 


T is my intention to write, not on the value of the 
doctrine of common grace in general, but speci- 
fically on the importance of this truth for the church 
of today. AsIdoso, I reproduce in the main a paper 
which I read before the Western Social Conference 
of the Reformed Church, attended mostly by min- 
isters, in the spring of 1924. It was printed in its 
entirety in The Leader. 

May I not assume that my readers know in a gen- 
eral way what Reformed theologians mean by com- 
mon grace? Most of us have in mind the now 
famous three points established by the Christian 
Reformed Synod of Kalamazoo. Their essence is: 
that God in a sense is good to all men; that God 
restrains sin in the individual and in the race; and 
that the unregenerated can do civic good. Of course 
there is much more to the doctrine, but let this suffice 
for the present. _ 

Let me suggest a couple of considerations that 
prompt me to write on the subject. 

Our Reformed people of Dutch descent can hardly 
be said to value the doctrine of common grace very 
highly. Nor should they be blamed for this attitude. 


110 As To Being Reformed 


Historically, it is easily explained. The founders of 
the western branch of the Reformed Church in 
America, as well as of the Christian Reformed 
Church, took an active and leading part in the Seces- 
sion of 1834 in the Netherlands. The early settlers 
were almost, if not entirely, all seceders. And likely 
the majority of later immigrants who united with 
these churches were of seceder stock. Now it is 
generally admitted that the men of 1834 never made 
much of the doctrine of common grace, not nearly 
so much as, for instance, the so-called ‘‘doleerenden” 
of 1886. They could not, for the doctrine had not 
been developed and propagated as it was subse- 
quently by Bavinck and Kuyper. 


I come to a fact of more importance. It must be 
obvious to every Reformed observer that the ortho- 
dox forces in the Christian churches of America gen- 
erally are guilty of neglect of the truth of common 
grace. I do not hesitate to say that this is a serious 
ailment of a great many—how many I shall not 
attempt to estimate, but I believe the majority—of 
our present-day Fundamentalists. Bavinck says in 
his lecture on Common Grace that both the Bap- 
tists and the Methodists in America, due to the in- 
fluence of Anabaptism, deny or ignore this doctrine. 
Surely they are very strong numerically in the Fun- 
damentalist camp. Disregard of common grace goes 
a Jong way toward explaining the deplorable fact 
that our American Protestant clergy is on the whole 
so poorly educated. I regard the Methodist ban on 


As To Being Reformed 111 


smoking and drinking as a flouting of at least a few 
of the things of common grace. And may I not recall 
in this connection that Dr. I. M. Haldeman, one 
of our foremost American Fundamentalists, once 
published a sermon in which he discussed the grow- 
ing demand in our day for civic righteousness under 
the title: The Devil’s Righteousness? 

Turning now to our subject proper, I wish to direct 
attention from some six viewpoints to the exceeding 
importance of the doctrine of common grace for the 
church of today. 


(1) The churches of our day are passing through 
a doctrinal crisis. Many of the old creeds have 
fallen into disrepute. Few, if any, to be sure, have 
been officially scrapped; but almost all of them are 
largely being ignored. It is generally known that 
even Presbyterian pulpits are occupied by men who 
reject certain articles of the Apostles’ Creed, to say 
nothing of the Westminster Confession. Leaders 
in the church assure us that it makes precious little 
difference what one believes or disbelieves, so long 
as one lives the so-called Christ-life. ‘No creed but 
Christ” is the slogan not merely of certain rescue 
missions, but of a very large part of American Chris- 
tendom. 

This cannot go on forever. A creedless church 
cannot long exist. A reaction is pretty certain to 
set in. Sooner or later, I expect, the church will 
come to feel that it has to give an account of what 
it believes. 


112 As To Being Reformed 


When that comes to pass, the fundamental ques- 
tion confronting the church will be this: who is 
God? That question is always fundamental. The — 
church’s theology in the broad sense of the term 
has ever been determined by its theology in the nar- 
row sense. One’s view of God ultimately determines 
one’s view of man, of the universe, of the way of 
salvation, of everything. 

Now the doctrine of common grace has a most 
direct and important bearing on the question who 
God is. On the one hand it tells us that God is 
good to all men. If common grace means anything 
at all, it means that. But on the other hand com- 
mon grace implies the existence also of special or 
particular grace. And so it is an implication of 
this doctrine that God is not good to all men in the 
same sense; that he does not manifest his goodness 
to all unto salvation. 

With this in mind, it is not difficult to predict to 
what erroneous conception of God the church may 
come, nay, eventually must come, if it discards the 
doctrine of common grace. Hither it will deny that 
God is good to all men, and then it will be driven to 
the conclusion that God showers blessings of various 
kinds upon those whom he does not love with no 
other intention than that these blessings shall be- 
come a curse for them; or the church will assert 
that God is good to all men in precisely the same 
manner, and thus it will deny that some are saved 
by special grace while others perish through lack 
of it. This will amount to a denial of divine sover- 


As To Being Reformed 113 


eignty. In a word, if the church denies common 
grace, it will one day find itself in possession of a 
God who is either a despot or a weakling. 

The doctrine of common grace, however, if con- 
sistently held to, is a sure safeguard against both 
of these calamities. It makes for a sound view of 
God, which, as was already remarked, is basic to 
all sound theology. 


(2) If I am not mistaken, present-day theology 
is in the sign of man. Anthropology is the subject 
of chief interest. And the burning question is: just 
how good or how bad is man? 

The doctrine of common grace gives a definite 
answer to that question. It tells us that natural, 
unregenerated, man is totally depraved and conse- 
quently incapable of doing any good whatsoever of 
himself. Undeniable fact is, however, that he does 
a great deal of good. Just think of the civic virtues 
and the noble morality which often adorn him. This 
good, says our doctrine, is the fruit of the working 
of God’s common grace in him. 

But now observe to what erroneous views of man 
the denial of common grace must needs lead. If 
we discard common grace, we are driven inevitably 
to one of two conclusions: either man is not totally 
depraved, he can do good of himself; or the good 
which he does is not really good at all: his virtues 
are faults; his noble accomplishments are works of 
the devil; his patriotism, marital fidelity, filial piety, 
love for his children, common honesty are all of them 


114 As To Being Reformed 


glittering sins. In the doctrine of man the denial of 
common grace leads to rankest Modernism or black- 
est misanthropy. 

If the church would escape being perched on 
either horn of this dilemma, it must cling tooth and 
nail to the truth of common grace. 


(8) The higher critics, so-called, have for many 
decades been attempting to prove that the religion of 
Israel was of a kind with the other religions of the 
ancient world as, for example, the Egyptian, the 
Babylonian, the Assyrian. At that very point the 
Old Testament critics have all the time been driving. 
And, naturally, in their argumentation they were 
everlastingly calling afention to common elements in 
Israel’s religion on the one hand and ancient pagan- 
ism on the other. 

Of course I agree wholeheartedly with all those 
believing scholars who contend that the religion of 
Israel was essentially different, positively unique, in 
a class entirely by itself. The essence of Israel’s reli- 
gion lay in the covenant of grace, which God had 
established with no other people on the face of the 
earth. Let me put it this way: in other religions it 
was man that sought God; in this unique religion it 
was God that sought man. ‘He sheweth his word 
unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto 
Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation.” 

I am afraid, however, that some well-meaning 
Christian teachers and students, in their debate with 





As To Being Reformed 115 


the critics, have been overshooting the mark. That 
of course is poor policy. 

I mean this: in their anxiety to prove the unique- 
ness of Israel’s religion, they have been too ready to 
deny obvious resemblances between it and other 
religions. In other words—and now we hitch up 
with our subject—they have too largely ignored the 
plain fact that God in the establishment of the cove- 
nant of special grace took his starting point in com- 
mon grace. Israel’s religion was built up on the 
broad foundation of the original religion of human- 
ity in the families of Adam and Noah, in the races 
of Seth and Shem. Therefore those attributes of 
God which are revealed in nature, as his omnipotence 
and omniscience, are more prominent on the pages 
of the Old Testament than in the New. That also 
explains it that God adopted for the religion of his 
ehosen race some forms already in existence else- 
where, as the rite of circumcision, for instance. Thus 
Bavinck reasons in his lecture on our subject. 

The point is this. Israel’s religion was absolutely 
unique. That truth should receive all emphasis. But 
it may not be forgotten that common grace under- 
lay it. To remember this will strengthen us in our 
warfare with the critics. 


(4) Wecome toa point of great practical signifi- 
eance. 

Our age has been styled “the missionary age.” I 
think correctly so. Not since the days of the apostle 
Paul has the Christian church been laboring so dili- 


116 As To Being Reformed 


gently for the extension of the kingdom through the 
preaching of the Gospel as it is today. But I con- 
tend that neglect of the truth of common grace 
can hardly help resulting in the lagging of this 
activity. On the other hand, its full recognition 
must needs be a boon to this great enterprise. 

It has already been remarked that in the old dis- 
pensation God took his starting point in common 
grace. Israel’s religion was built historically on 
the foundation of the general religion of humanity. 
However, as time went on the general was relegated 
to the background, and the particular; that is, the 
covenant of special grace in the promised Messiah, 
was pressed into the foreground. Then, in the full- 
ness of time, the Christ appeared and in him the 
fullness of special grace was revealed. But lo and 
behold! Something remarkable now happened. Spe- 
cial grace was not restricted to Israel; it was im- 
parted to the world. In the new dispensation the 
stream of special grace overflowed the bounds of 
Israel’s nationality and rushed out over the whole 
world of humanity. Now for this occasion God had 
preserved the race by his common grace. And so 
it is characteristic of the new dispensation that in 
it common grace and special grace, long separated, 
again flow together. But that is only another way 
of saying that the new dispensation is the dispensa- 
tion of missions. 

How inseparably then are not the doctrine of 
common grace and the doctrine of missions bound 
up together! 


As To Being Reformed 117 


Everybody will have to admit that the very first 
requirement for successful missionary effort is a 
point of contact between the missionary and those 
whom he would lead to Christ. 


The missionary who recognizes this has a wonder- 
ful advantage over his colleague who fails to see it. 
God himself has supplied this point of contact in 
common grace. To illustrate the point I need but 
quote from the famous address made by the church’s 
greatest missionary on Mars’ Hill in the city of 
Athens. How adroitly the apostle took common 
grace as his starting point in preaching the Christ! 
“Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye 
are more than others respectful of what is divine. 
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I 
found an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown 
God.’ Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him 
I declare unto you.” And he went on: “This God 
hath made of one blood ali nations of men for to 
dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath deter- 
mined the time before appointed, and the bounds of 
their habitations; that they should seek the Lord, if 
haply they might feel after him, and find him, 
though he be not far from every one of us; for in 
him we live, and move, and have our being, as cer- 
tain also of your own poets have said, ‘For we are 
also his offspring.’ ” 

It has been said by certain consistent deniers of 
common grace that, since God is not good in any 
sense to the reprobate, it cannot be his desire that 


118 As To Being Reformed 


they should accept the Gospel offer. It is difficult 
to see how anyone with this view can be very enthu- 
siastic about preaching the Gospel to a lost world. 
How very different is the case of the preacher who 
is convinced that God has ‘‘no pleasure in the death 
of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his 
way and live”! 


(5) Ours is the age of social welfare work, tem- 
perance movements, reform societies. Seldom, if 
ever, has there been such an insistent demand for 
civic righteousness as today. 

It is not for us to determine at this point how far 
and after what manner the church is to co-operate 
with these movements. This must be asserted: the 
church should know of nothing save Jesus Christ 
and him crucified. This may be added: the only 
way in which society can be saved is through the 
salvation of individuals. But I hasten to say that the 
church which ignores these movements is guilty 
before God of neglect. 


Christ came into the world not merely to restore 
the ethical-religious life of man. No, the influence 
of the Christ is co-extensive with sin. He came to 
restore all that had been corrupted and disrupted. 
by sin. His mission was to destroy all the works 
of the devil. For that reason Christ has something 
to say about the family, society, industry, even 
science and art. And it is the church’s business to 
interpret this all-inclusive message of the Christ to 
the world. 


ce at: = 
ote bere 


As To Being Reformed 119 


But only then can the church be expected to per- 
form this task if first it has grasped the doctrine of 
common grace. For the several spheres just named 
are all included in the larger sphere of common 
grace. If the church denies our doctrine, there is 
great danger that it will content itself with leading 
individual souls to heaven, and let society alone, 
trusting, as a leading Baptist preacher once put it, 
that “God will save society when his King comes 
back.” 


(6) My sixth point was already treated in the 
chapter on Modernism and Fundamentalism. Now 
I shall merely summarize. 

The Modernist commits the terrible sin of reduc- 
ing the supernatural to the level of the natural and 
thus destroying it. The Fundamentalist stresses the 
supernatural at the expense of the natural. That 
too is a mistake. The Calvinist, while upholding 
the supernatural with all his might, also gives due 
honor to the natural. Therefore Calvinism, not 
Fundamentalism, is the cure for Modernism. So we 
argued. 

And now it must be added that the credit for 
Calvinism’s just appraisal of the natural belongs to 
the Reformed doctrine of common grace. It enables 
us to esteem the natural as God would have it 
esteemed. It insists that natural blessings as rain 
and sunshine in due season, natural talents as music 
and oratory, natural virtues as filial piety and mar- 


120 As To Being Reformed 


ital love are all of them good gifts that come down 
from the Father of lights. At every turn the doc- 
trine of common grace exalts the natural. 

So this truth keeps the Calvinist from the weak- 
ness of Fundamentalism, and at once arms him for 
the conflict with Modernism. 


Pre-, Post-, and A-Millennialism 


a 
¥ ta 


t} wee iy he if Na ae 
cy, ae ps j 





CHAPTER IX. 
PRE-, POST-, AND A-MILLENNIALISM 


O MUCH has been written and spoken in late 

years about Pre- and Post-millennialism that 

it seems almost superfluous to define them. <A few 
general statements ought to suffice. 

Many Christians believe that the kingdom of God 
is going to have universal sway over the earth before 
the end of time, and that righteousness and peace 
and the knowledge of the Lord will everywhere pre- 
vail. This happy period is commonly called the 
Millennium, or Christ’s reign of a thousand years. 

The Premillenarian believes that Christ’s second 
advent will occur before the Millennium. Pre- means 
before. He expects the world to go from bad to 
worse until presently the Christ puts in his appear- 
ance in order to put down his foes and to reign on 
earth with the translated and the resurrected saints. 


The Postmillenarian feels sure that, through the 
preaching of the Gospel and the general uplifting 
influence of Christianity, the Millennium will grad- 
ually be ushered in. It follows that it will not be 
necessary for Christ to return to earth until after 
this blessed period. Post- means after. 

The great majority of those present-day Christians 
who give serious thought to the future choose be- 


124 As To Being Reformed 


tween Pre- and Post-. They feel this incumbent 
upon them. It never seems to occur to them that 
their choice is not limited to these two views. As 
a matter of fact there is a third view. It differs 
about as much from Post- as from Pre-millennialism. 
It has been called, very correctly it seems to me, 
Amillennialism. 


The Amillenarian is convinced that there is not 
going to be a period of universal peace and right- 
eousness on earth this side of eternity. He rejects 
the teaching of a future millennium. A- means not. 


Premillennialism savors strongly of Judaism. 
Every student of the Bible knows that the big trouble 
with the Jews of Jesus’ day, including even the 
chosen twelve, was that they expected the Messiah 
to break in pieces like a potter’s vessel the oppres- 
sors of the Lord’s heritage, to sit upon the throne of 
his illustrious sire David at Jerusalem, and from 
there to extend his dominion to earth’s utmost ends. 
They looked for an earthly, physical, kingdom of 
Messiah rather than a heavenly and spiritual. 


The Anabaptists of the sixteenth century lived in 
much the same hope. This may seem very strange 
in view of their tendency, referred to in the discus- 
sion of Modernism and Fundamentalism, to exalt the 
spiritual at the expense of the natural. But it is not 
nearly so strange as it looks. When people show an 
inclination to become overly spiritual, it is usually 
safe to infer that they are not so very spiritual after 


As To Being Reformed 125 


all. Truly spiritual men and women do not pose as 
such. 

Far be it from me to call the Premillenarian 
names! I am not hurling any epithet at him: neither 
that of Judaizer nor that of Anabaptist. But, as 
was already said that his view savors of Judaism, 
so now I add that it suggests Anabaptism. It is 
a matter of history that our modern Baptists, among 
whom are many very staunch Premillenarians, are 
the lineal descendants, not of the fanatical, but of 
the more sober kind of Anabaptists of the Reforma- 
tion age. 

The Postmillenarian has this in common with the 
Modernist that he looks for the world to become 
better and better. This statement is not intended 
as aslur. But fact itis. Nor can it be denied that, 
while some Postmillenarians are hotly opposed to 
Modernism, a great many of them are rapidly drift- 
ing toward the Modernist whirl-pool. Not a few are 
strongly inclined to deny Christ’s visible return alto- 
gether. They spiritualize this Scriptural doctrine. 


The great Reformed Confessions are Amillenarian. 
By this is not meant that they condemn in so many 
words either Pre- or Post-millennialism as heretical. 
But, to say the very least, they do not teach a mil- 
lennium. Is it too bold to assert that by implication 
they deny that there is going to be a time of uni- 
versal peace? 

Many members of the Reformed Church in Amer- 
ica misunderstand the attitude of the Christian Re- 


126 As To Being Reformed 


formed Church toward the millennial question. From 
the deposition of the Reverend Harry Bultema of 
Muskegon they have inferred that the Christian 
Reformed Church has put up the bars against all 
Premillenarians. This is not at all the case. Bul- 
tema was deposed, not because of his Premillenarian 
views as such, but on the ground of his denial of 
two important points of doctrine, both clearly taught — 
in the church Standards: the unity of the church of 
the old and the new dispensations, and the King- 
ship of Christ over his church. There are a number 
of Premillenarians in the Christian Reformed fellow- 
ship today, some of them very highly respected. And 
did not the Synod of Orange City, 1922, turn down 
an overture requesting that the denomination take 
a definite stand on the millennial issue? 

There are some Premillenarians in the Christian 
Reformed Church. There are many more in the Re- 
formed Church. 

To my knowledge there are no Postmillenarians 
in the Christian Reformed Church. There are sev- 
eral in the Reformed Church. 

Almost all the members, including the ministers, 
of the Christian Reformed Church lean toward Amil- 
lennialism. So strong a statement cannot be made 
about the Reformed Church in America. 

Christians ought to be very careful about saying 
definitely that they are Pre-, or Post-, or A-millenar- 
ians. Few know enough about the matter to take 
an intelligent stand. Our best Reformed theologians 


As To Being Reformed 127 


cannot be said to have made an exhaustive study of 
the teaching of the Word of God on the subject. 
Much hard work remains to be done in this depart- 
ment. And it goes without saying that the issue will 
have to be threshed out on Scriptural ground. 


May I be pardoned for the temerity of suggesting 
two little contributions, not altogether original 
either, toward the Scriptural study of this interest- 
ing subject? 

There is a group of passages in the Bible which 
teach that toward Christ’s second coming the world 
is going to be a very wicked place. The Premillen- 
arians make much of these passages; the Postmillen- 
arians rather ignore them. I quote just afew. Jesus 
compared the days immediately preceding the advent 
of the Son of man with those of Lot in Sodom.—Luke 
17:26-29. At the conclusion of the parable of the 
widow and the unrighteous judge the Savior sighed 
the melancholy query: ‘“‘When the Son of man 
cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”’—Luke 
18:8. Revelation 18 pictures the terrible reign of 
Antichrist, after whom all the world is said to won- 
der. It is not strange that many earnest students 
of Scripture have come to the conclusion that the 
world must grow worse and worse as time goes on, 
until at last it shall be desperately wicked. 

But the Bible contains another group of passages, 
teaching the gradual development of Christ’s king- 
dom on earth. From these many infer that the 
world must needs become better and better, until the 


128 As To Being Reformed 


process of development issues in the Millennium. 
The Postmillenarians make much of these passages; 
the Premillenarians are inclined to explain them 
away. Again I refer to but a few. Daniel spoke 
of Messiah’s kingdom as a stone cut out without 
hands, which grew into a great mountain and filled 
the earth.—2:35, 44, 45. And Jesus taught much 
the same truth in the very well known parables of 
the mustard seed and the leaven.—Matthew 13: 
31-33. 


Now it seems to me that only the Amillenarians 
can do justice to these two seemingly contradictory 
teachings of God’s Word. Fact is that there are two 
kingdoms on earth: one of Light, the other of Dark- 
ness. Both are in process of development. Of both 
it may be said what Charles Hodge writes guardedly 
of the former: each is, “in some of its aspects, 
progressive.”—Systematic Theology, Volume III, 
page 850. Broadly speaking, conditions on earth 
are becoming both better and worse at once. Wit- 
ness: the Christianization of pagan nations and the 
slipping back of Christian peoples into paganism. 

Meanwhile the two kingdoms are engaged in mor- 
tal combat. They would thwart one another’s devel- 
opment. In the struggle sometimes the one seems 
to get the better of the other, then again the other 
of the one. If I read the Word correctly, a time is 
coming when the kingdom of Darkness will seem 
to have triumphed almost completely over that of 
Light. But this will last but a little season. With 


As To Being Reformed 129 


the suddenness of a flash of lightning the King of 
kings and Lord of lords will apear in great glory 
and power and turn seeming defeat into perfect vic- 
tory. 

And then the angel who stands with his right foot 
on the sea, his left on the earth, will swear by him 
that liveth for ever and ever that there shall be time 
no longer. 


The Premillenarians make a great deal of Revela- 
tion 20:1-10. This passage is the chief supporting 
pillar of the Premillennial structure. 

I wish to suggest an Amillenarian explanation. 
Dr. B. B. Warfield of Princeton Seminary first 
taught me it some fifteen years ago. Since then I 
have come across it a few times. It looks very rea- 
sonable to me. | 

Mention is made of a reign of Christ lasting a 
thousand years. Like the numbers in Revelation 
generally, also this one is symbolic. It designates 
a long and complete period of history. It is the 
period from Christ’s ascension into heaven until his 
return ; in a word, the new, the present, dispensation. 
He is reigning now. 

During this period Satan is said to be bound. It 
may seem foolish to assert that this is the case today. 
But we are not told that he is bound absolutely. Only 
so far is he bound “that he should deceive the 
nations no more.” And when he is loosed at the 
end of the thousand years, he will deceive the nations 
which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and 


130 As To Being Reformed 


Magog, to gather them for battle against the saints. 
The meaning is simply this: as in the old dispensa- 
tion the pagan nations were supreme, so in the new 
the Christian nations will hold sway on earth. Does 
not history support this interpretation? Not until 
the very end of this period will Satan be permitted 
to lead the pagan forces from the ends of the earth 
against Christendom. 

We are not told that the saints will reign bodtly 
with Christ during the thousand years. To the con- 
trary, we are expressly informed that the ‘‘souwls” 
of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus 
lived and reigned with Christ. That is the case right 
now. And this is called the first resurrection. 

Satan will be loosed but a little while. His forces 
will make it hot for the saints. But God will send 
fire from heaven and devour his enemies. And then 
at once comes the general judgment. 


In conclusion may I not sound a note of warning 
against two extremes? 

There are those who are decidedly fanatic about 
Christ’s second coming. They think of little else. 
Like the Thessalonians of Paul’s day they are so 
deeply absorbed in its consideration that they neglect 
their present duties. They want it spoken of in 
every sermon. They think to find reference to it 
in almost every verse of Scripture. Such should be 
admonished to be sober. 

There are also those in Reformed circles who dis- 
courage and even disparage all study of future 


As To Being Reformed 131 


events. That is decidedly unbiblical. The New 
Testament is replete with exhortations to observe the 
signs of the times, to regard the word of prophecy, 
to look forward to the glorious coming of the Lord. 
Does it not end with an announcement of this stu- 
pendous event and a fervent prayer for its hasten- 
ing? The consideration of Christ’s coming should 
put a stamp on the life of every Christian, a stamp 
of holiness. “Beloved, seeing that ye look for such 
things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in 
peace, without spot, and blameless!” 


Aare 
a Fed ny Ma Le 


al 


apy ‘\ \ 
7 


7 
fi; 
i) 


AL steksy 
st 
AeA 


foie 


tb i 


y 
- 
an 
FAS c } 
bye | 

alt: 





The Christian and the World 





CHAPTER xX. 
THE CHRISTIAN AND THE WORLD 


HREE considerations constrain me to say some- 
thing about the Christian’s relation to the world. 
One of the most urgent problems confronting the 
Christian church in general, the Reformed and 
Christian Reformed churches in particular, is how 
to combat the rapidly increasing worldliness of 
church-members. The problem is exceedingly acute 
just now in Christian Reformed circles for the ob- 
vious reason that our people are stepping forth from 
virtual isolation into closer contact with the world. 
In the second place, while the attitude of Re- 
formed Christians toward the world has much in 
common with that of Christians of other persuasions, 
in some respects the Reformed view is distinctive. 
For instance, some Christians are ascetic; the Cal- 
vinist is not. But we shall have more to say on 
this subject. 

Finally, I greatly fear that there is prevalent in 
our Reformed circles a very superficial view of 
worldliness. I verily believe that there are those 
among us who vehemently denounce certain obvious 
forms of worldliness, and, without ever suspecting 
it, are themselves guilty of other forms, less obvious 
but just as serious. 


136 As To Being Reformed 


Having stated why I write on this subject, let me 
now bring what I have to say under five heads. 


1. The Christian Strives to Keep Himself Unspotted 
from the World. 


That the Christian should abstain from practices 
in themselves sinful, is so evident that the very men- 
tion of it seems superfluous. 


But at once the question arises: what practices 
are as such sinful? Many think this question a diffi- 
cult one; as a matter of fact the answer is simple. 
Not so very many things are sinful in themselves. 
Many Christians call dancing a sin. Now, to be 
sure, it is exceedingly difficult to conceive of a per- 
son’s engaging in the usual modern dance without 
sinning. Yet according to the Bible dancing as 
such is not a sin. David danced before the ark. 
In Psalms 149 and 150 men are told to praise God 
in the dance. Again, several Christians are posi- 
tive that it is wrong to use an alcoholic drink as a 
beverage. And who can deny that such drinking 
leads to much sinning? But the Bible tells us that 
God gives men wine to gladden their hearts, and 
his Son made wine at the wedding in Cana. 

A pretty complete list of practices wrong in them- 
selves has come to us in the Ten Commandments. 

However, let no one suppose that all the Chris- 
tian has to do in order to keep himself unspotted 
from the world, is to abstain from things in them- 
selves sinful. The case is not nearly as simple as 


As To Being Reformed 137 


that. Often he must refrain from practices in them- 
selves innocent. 


Did not the Savior tell us to cut off a hand or a 
foot, a right one at that, and to pluck out an eye, 
if these offend us, since it is better to enter into life 
maimed or halt or partially blind than to be cast 
whole into hell-fire? Now surely hands and feet 
and eyes are in themselves valuable assets. But 
somehow assets may be turned into liabilities. That 
occurs when they become offenses, stumbling-blocks, 
occasions for sinning. We have the Savior’s com- 
mand then, radically, abruptly, to break with things 
which, though good enough in themselves, lead us 
inevitably to sinning. 


Let us apply this advice to our modern life. 


A Christian young woman has histrionic talent, let 
us say. Now according to the best Reformed moral- 
ists that is a gift of God’s common grace. There 
is nothing reprehensible about dramatic representa- 
tion as such. In order to develop her talent, she 
attends a school of dramatic art. She graduates 
and is now a professional actress. But soon she 
finds, as, it seems to me, she can hardly help finding 
in today’s theatrical world, that her work and her 
associations are inevitably dulling her moral sensibil- 
ity. The time has come for her to drop her career. 


The cinema is a wonderful invention, and not of 
the devil either, as some would have us believe. But 
the modern moving picture show, generally speak- 


138 As To Being Reformed 


ing, is admittedly so thoroughly corrupt and corrupt- 
ing that Christians may well taboo it. 

Dancing in the Biblical sense is perfectly proper. 
Dancing in the modern sense is very demoralizing. 
That they may avoid its lure, 1 do not want my chil- 
dren to learn to dance at all. 

May I not add here that it is the Christian’s duty, 
not only to avoid stumbling himself, but also to keep 
others from it? Did not Paul say that, rather than 
offend his brother; that is, rather than give his 
brother occasion for falling into sin, he would never 
eat meat? Let us beware lest on our account the 
weak brother, for whom Christ died, perish.—lI 
Corinthians 8:11. 


2. The Christian Feels Himself a Stranger in the 
World. 


The Bible teaches this repeatedly and emphatic- 
ally. When Jesus complained: “Foxes have holes 
and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of 
man hath not where to lay his head,” he was not 
referring to his supposed poverty—he was not as 
poor as is commonly thought—but to his restless- 
ness. He did not feel at home on earth. How could 
he? His home was heaven. And much the same 
thing is true of his disciples. Of Abraham we are 
told that “he sought the city that hath foundations, 
whose builder and maker is God.’”’ That applies also 
to his children. “Our citizenship is in heaven.” Now 
we, like the Israelites of old, are journeying through 
a desert. Presently we shall enter upon the rest of 


As To Being Reformed 139 


Canaan. “There remaineth therefore a rest unto 
the people of God.” 

With that in mind, Jesus warned us not to gather 
a treasure on earth, where moth and rust corrupt 
and where thieves break through and steal, but to 
make sure that we have a treasure in heaven, where 
such things do not happen; and Paul exhorted us 
to seek the things which are above instead of set- 
ting our affections on earthly things. And again the 
same apostle told us that, while we may indeed use 
the world, we should take heed lest we abuse it; that 
is, use it too intensely.—I Corinthians 7:31. 

Let us suggestively apply also this last admoni- 
tion to modern living. 

A Christian young man was studying medicine 
at one of our big universities. He had a consuming 
passion for his work. One day he made the alarm- 
ing discovery that his devotion to things physical 
had caused his interest in the spiritual to wane 
almost to nil. He determined to regain his balance. 
But, try as he might over a period of several months, 
he failed. Leaving others alone, he concluded that 
for himself the study of medicine was a stumbling- 
block. He dropped medicine and, instead, turned to 
theology. 

I know several sincere Christians, some of them 
Christian Reformed ministers, who see no harm at 
all in an occasional game of cards such as Rook. 
They fail to feel the force of the familiar argument 
that he who plays a game in which the element of 


140 As To Being Reformed 


chance is prominent, is playing with divine Provi- 
dence and thus committing sacrilege. But, obviously, 
as soon aS one acquires a passion for such games, 
which, it would seem, happens quite readily, one has 
overstepped bounds. In that case, the sooner one’s 
cards are assigned to the furnace, the better. 

Money is a splendid gift of God. But very few 
are they who can resist the temptations of riches. 
And so my advice to almost all Christians is to keep 
giving away so much that they never become 
wealthy. And my opinion of the miserly elder is 
that he is every whit as worldly as the young people 
whom he threatens with excommunication if they 
do not desist from dancing and theatre-going. The 
minister too who preaches for money rather than 
for the love of God and human souls is in the same 
class. In fact every one who has not learned to 
seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness, 
trusting that all other things will be added unto him, 
is essentially worldly. 


3. The Christian Should Use Whatever is Usable in 
the World Unto God’s Glory. 


Many Christians, in their fervent desire to avoid 
the world’s contamination, adopt a policy of ‘‘touch 
not, taste not, and handle not.” This policy is 
usually called Anabaptistic, but it is followed te 
some extent by several Christians who bitterly resent 
being called by this name. 

That the use of tobacco and alcoholic beverages 
is sinful, is a rather prevalent view. I have actually 


As To Being Reformed 141 


heard the opinion expressed in all seriousness that 
the moving picture must be an invention of Satan, 
and that he who allows his eyes to rest on one, 
whether in the theatre or in the church, has fellow- 
ship with the works of darkness. I know several 
persons who pride themselves on not having seen 
the inside of a theatre on any occasion whatever. 
When a member of one of my charges placed a 
billiard table in the attic of his home, some of his 
Christian neighbors shrugged their shoulders. 


It does not occur to me to question the good inten- 
tions of such little people, but I do feel that they 
greatly need to be warned. While they think that 
they are playing safe, in reality they are treading 
on very dangerous ground. Let them beware lest, 
like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, they become whited 
sepulchres. Let them remember that many a monas- 
tery and convent has degenerated into a brothel. Let 
them read about the scandalous parade which the 
Dutch Anabaptists once staged on the streets of 
Amsterdam. To be overly pious is not a virtue, but 
an abomination. “To touch not, to taste not, to handle 
not” is next to worldliness of the most blatant type. 
Extremes meet. 

But that is not all. Not only is the Anabaptistic 
attitude toward the world fraught with the gravest 
kind of perils for man. What is even worse, it de- 
prives God of honor which is due to him. In all 
his works and in all his gifts, those of common 
grace as well as of saving grace, God is aiming at 


142 As To Being Reformed 


Ber 
ce a 


his own glory. It is for us to use them to that end. 
Far be it from us Christians to leave the fine arts, 
as music, sculpture, and drama; such inventions as 
the cinema and the radio; money, sports, etc., for 
Satan and the wicked world to exploit. We should 
capitalize them much more than we have been doing 
for the glorification of the great God, from whom, 
through whom, and unto whom are all things. “Pro 
Rege!” “For the King!” . 

In this connection should be considered the inter- 
esting fact that, while the Methodists have long had 
a ban on such things as theatre-going and dancing, 
as well as smoking and drinking, the Reformed 
churches, while just as earnest in their warnings 
against worldliness, have usually refrained from 
placing an official ban on such practices. 


The following four considerations will, I believe, 
in large measure explain this phenomenon. 

a) No creature or gift of God is in itself evil. 

b) We are not living in the dispensation of the 
law, but in that of the Spirit. 

c¢) The only cure for sin is positive holiness. 

d) Instead of leaving the world alone altogether, 
the Christian should employ all that is usable 
to God’s glorification. 


And they will bring the glory and the honor of 
the nations into the New Jerusalem. 


As To Being Reformed 143 


4. It is the Christian’s Duty to Testify Against the 
Sins of the World. 


I greatly fear that the chief reason why we Chris- 
tians and worldly people about us get along together 
so peaceably and pleasantly today, is to be found in 
our failure to testify against the world as we should. 

Instead of crying out against wicked shows, we 
seem satisfied if we can keep our own children away. 
And seated comfortably in church, we allow the 
world to desecrate the Lord’s day almost at will. The 
result is that the world pokes fun at us, but can 
hardly be said positively to hate us. 

As priests we should keep ourselves pure from 
the world. As prophets we should declaim against 
the world. But history tells us that prophets rather 
than priests must bear the brunt of the world’s per- 
secution. 

To be sure, the Christian should not be unneces- 
sarily offensive. He should not go through life with 
a chip on his shoulder. So far as is in him he should 
keep peace with all men. But if he is faithful in 
testifying he is sure to make some enemies. 

It is said that John Wesley used to ask two ques- 
tions of candidates for the ministry, both of which 
they had to answer affirmatively in order to be ad- 
mitted to this high calling. They were: “Have you 
made any converts?” and “Have you made any 
enemies ?”’ 

Said the Master: ‘The servant is not greater than 
his Lord. . If they have persecuted me, they will also 


144 As To Being Reformed 


persecute you”; and “In the world ye shall have trib- 
ulation.” Paul assured the Christians of his day 
“that we must through much tribulation enter into 
the kingdom of God.” And the last of the eight 
beatitudes, in which are enumerated as many evi- 
dences of regeneration, each one of which is, there- 
fore, descriptive of every Christian, reads: ‘Blessed 
are they that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, 
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are 
ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and 
shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for 
my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great 
is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they 
the prophets which were before you.” 

We conclude that he who, in the interest of com- 
fort or reputation, refrains from testifying against 
the world’s sins, is himself guilty of the sin of world- 
liness. Only he who will deny himself, take up 
his cross, and follow the Master to death, can be 
his disciple. 


5. The Christian Should Be a Blessing to the World. 


The Pharisee of the parable thanked God that he 
was not like other men: extortioners, unjust, adult- 
erers, or like the publican who had just entered the 
temple to beg God for mercy. But he never moved 
a finger to lift up this poor sinner from the mire 
into which he had sunk. 

Let not the Christian suppose that he has done his 
duty by the world if he succeeds in keeping himself 


As To Being Reformed 145 


unspotted from it. Most emphatically, No! Like 
his Lord, he must seek to save that which is lost. 

With profound gratitude to God it may be recorded 
that our Reformed people are rapidly coming to a 
fuller realization of this truth. For many decades 
already the Reformed Church in America has 
abounded in this work of the Lord. Its magnificent 
missionary zeal is its crown of glory. But also the 
Christian Reformed Church is increasingly active in 
the work of missions. 

Yet who dares to say that the goal of perfection 
has been reached? In the city of Grand Rapids we 
have a flourishing rescue mission. There still are 
those in our circles who look down on this institu- 
tion with rather proud disdain. Much more numer- 
ous are those who say charitably: “Let the mission 
carry on; it reaches a class of people which the 
churches cannot touch.” But right here I would 
interpose a question. What manner of church is 
that which cannot touch the beastly drunkard and 
the leprous harlot? Do you call it Christian? But 
was not Christ the best friend that publicans and 
sinners ever had? In our city of two score Reformed 
churches hundreds still sigh: “No man careth for 
my soul.” 

When God called out Abraham from his pagan 
surroundings to make him the father of a peculiar 
people, he said: “‘And in thy seed shall all the kindred 
of the earth be blessed.” There is a lesson here 
which we have not yet fully grasped. Israel’s isola- 


146 As To Being Reformed 


tion was not an end in itself. It served only as a 
means to an end. Israel had to dwell alone in order 
that it might become a blessing to all the world. Let 
no Christian isolate himself from the world and then 
say in smug complacency: “I am holier than thou.” 
No true Christian can do that. It is of the very 
essence of Christianity to be a blessing. 

Far be it from me to insinuate that there are 
among our Reformed people Cains who mutter: “Am 
I my brother’s keeper?” or Jonahs who long to see 
our modern Ninevehs go up in smoke and grumble 
when the long-suffering God spares them. But all 
of us may well be reminded of the Savior’s words: 
“Ye are the salt of the earth; ye are the light of 
the world.” 

Let us carry into the world, enveloped in the dark- 
ness of sin and death, the bright light of the Gospel 
of him who declared: “I am the Light of the world” ! 


Reformed Preaching 


7 


_ 


se? 


) 


e 


4 ; 
th 





CHAPTER XI 
REFORMED PREACHING 


HAVE an idea that we of today may to advan- 

tage be reminded of certain things with refer- 
ence to preaching which our Reformed fathers used 
to emphasize. 

They may be grouped under four heads. 

(1) About the Preacher 

The very first question asked of a candidate for 
the ministry in our Reformed form of ordination is: 
whether he feels in his heart that he is called of God 
himself to the holy ministry. He is expected to 
reply: “Yes, truly, with all my heart.” 

That is fundamental. 

This conviction alone will enable him to preach 
with the proper note of authority, to preface his 
declarations with the prophetic “Thus saith the 
Lord.” 

When this conviction becomes a fire burning in 
his bones, he will pour out his very soul in his 
preaching, as did the chief apostle in the words: 
“Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as 
though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in 
Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God!” 

Swayed by this conviction, he will refrain from 
bringing his personal views into the pulpit and make 
sure that what he says is the very Word of God. 


150 As To Being Reformed 


This conviction, safeguarding him against the 
fatal error of seeking to please men rather than 
God, will make of him a veritable hero who in reck- 
less self-abandonment proclaims the full truth re- 
gardless of consequences. 


Upheld by this conviction, he will in days of weak- 
ness boast: “I can do all things through Christ, which 
strengtheneth me’; and when assailed by temptations 
of satan, jibes of the world, and slanders of false 
brethren, exultingly say: “By thee have I run 
through a troop; by my God have I leaped over a 
wall.” 

Is it presumptuous for me to offer just a bit of 
advice to young men who may be contemplating the 
ministry as their life work? If you are not firmly 
convinced that God is calling you, stay out! And if 
you are not willing to suffer for Christ’s sake, keep 
away! Better figure the cost before you start build- 
ing the tower. There was wisdom in the second as 
well as the first of the questions, already quoted, 
which John Wesley used to ask of candidates for the 
- ministry. The ministry is no place for touch-me-nots 
or Willie-boys. 

Our Reformed fathers had the gift of combining 
a lot of hard-headed common sense with their re- 
ligion. It takes common sense to determine whether 
one is called of God to the ministry. Supposed visions 
and voices from heaven are unreliable. The letters 
P. C. written in the sky may mean Plant Corn as 
well as Preach Christ. The conviction of a divine 


As To Being Reformed 15] 


calling should be rooted in something much more 
profound than the emotions. Perhaps twenty-five 
per cent of young men at the time of their conversion 
feel an urge to preach the Gospel. It is well. But 
what a blessing that the great majority of them 
never become ministers! It is self-evident that, if 
God wants a man to preach his Word, he will give 
him certain necessary qualifications. That God 
should call to the ministry a person who stutters or 
cannot think straight is, to put it mildly, unlikely. 
I am afraid that some men want to be ministers be- 
cause they take themselves too seriously. He who 
cannot every once in a while have a good laugh on 
himself should be slow about concluding that God 
wants him to preach. 


The Reformed churches have always insisted on 
an educated ministry. This has ever been a matter 
of principle with them. And never has the need of 
an educated ministry been greater than today. Gen- 
eral education is much more common than even a 
generation ago. Almost everybody goes through 
high school. Our American colleges are being stam- 
peded by students. It follows that he who is to 
preach to the present and the coming generations 
must have received a broad liberal education as well 
as a scientific theological training. 

In view of this principle and this situation, it is 
gratifying to note the rapid development of our Re- 
formed colleges. We are waking up to the fact that 
our seminaries also greatly need strengthening. It 


152 As To Being Reformed 


is time that we should. Medical and law courses 
today are much longer and much more exacting than 
they were a couple of decades ago. Our theological 
courses until quite recently were still very much the 
same. But we are moving in the right direction. The 
Christian Reformed Synod of 1926 deserves high 
praise for establishing a sixth chair at Calvin Sem- 
inary, and the latest Reformed Church Synod for 
enlarging the faculty of Western Seminary. 

We need an educated ministry in order that we 
may get studied sermons. It is not at all difficult for a 
man who has preached a few years to shake a sermon 
out of his sleeve, but the faithful minister will not 
want to do this. Often an extemporaneous talk will 
receive more praise from the audience than a care- 
fully prepared discourse, but the conscientious min- 
ister will not fall for it. “The gift of gab” is a won- 
derful asset if properly used, but, if relied upon in 
preaching, it becomes a ruinous liability. I have pro- 
found respect for those ministers who, under the 
stress of circumstances, preach three sermons a Sun- 
day, but I fear it is suicidal in more than one way to 
continue this for a long time. To the query how 
many sermons a minister can make in a week, the 
celebrated Spurgeon is said to have replied: “That 
depends on the man. A very good minister should 
be able to make one, a mediocre minister two, an 
inferior minister three, and an unusually poor min- 
ister almost any number.” 

Above all else, the minister of the Gospel should 
be highly spiritual. He must have had a real and 


As To Being Reformed 153 


rich religious experience. He must be genuinely 
pious. He must walk with God. It must be evident 
that he has been with Jesus. No, it cannot be denied 
that God is able to employ other men as instruments 
unto good. There is truth in the homely saying that 
God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick. 
However, only the spiritual man can discern spiritual 
things, perform the spiritual work of the ministry 
lovingly, preach spiritual sermons with a burning 
heart, and confirm his preaching by spiritual living. 
The minister who lacks spirituality is pretty sure to 
degenerate into a sluggard or a mercenary. 

Spirituality always goes hand in hand with hum- 
ility. Humility is an absolute requisite in a minister. 
The self-seeking minister is in great need of con- 
version. The usual New Testament word for 
preacher is “herald.’”’ The herald’s work is not to 
announce himself, but his King, who is coming. 
When John the Baptist was asked who he was, he 
replied: ‘I am a Voice.” He wanted to be heard, not 
seen. I can think of no better inaugural text than 
this one: ““He must increase, I must decrease.” And 
when a minister has finished his farewell sermon, it 
should be true of the congregation what is told of the 
disciples on the mount of transfiguration after the 
departure of Moses and Elias: ‘“‘When they lifted up 
their eyes, they saw no man save Jesus only.” 


(2) About the Audience 


In their letters the apostles addressed themselves 
to believers. The minister of an organized church 


154 As To Being Reformed 


should do likewise. It is a big mistake for him to 
place his audience on a level with that which faces 
the foreign missionary or that which is found at 
rescue missions. His audience is a manifestation of 
the body of Christ, which he should seek to perfect. 


The children in the audience he should regard as 
covenant children. This means that he has a right 
to assume that they are regenerated. But that very - 
assumption gives force to his appeal that they accept 
the Christ by an act of personal and conscious faith 
as Savior and Lord. They should be warned that, 
if they fail to do this, they will be cast out into outer 
darkness. 

Personally I see no sense in preaching special ser- 
mons or even sermonettes for the children. Every 
sermon should contain a great deal to interest the 
little ones. The minister who finds it difficult to 
come down to the intellectual level of children should 
study harder. It requires less study to preach for 
adults than for children. And be it said for the 
preacher’s encouragement: when the children can 
understand his sermons, the chances are that even 
the grown-ups will be able to follow. 

1 fear that not a few preachers underestimate 
their audiences. The shallowness of many a sermon 
eonstitutes a veritable insult to those who are ex- 
pected to listen. I feel sure that one reason why 
some ministers fail to keep their audiences is that 
they have little but platitudes to offer. The great 
majority of people like to have their minister pro- 


As To Being Reformed 155 


duce new treasures as well as old from the Word. 
They want more than they can say they want. In 
his autobiography Edward Bok ascribes the mar- 
velous success of The Ladies’ Home Journal in part 
to the fact that it always gave its readers a little more 
and something a little different than what they asked 
for. I once heard Dr. Warfield say to a class: “‘Gen- 
tlemen, I hope you all will preach over the heads of 
your audiences. Paul did.” 

But woe be to the preacher who expresses simple 
truths, or even deep truths, in a dense way in order 
to harvest the compliment that he is deep. The art 
of preaching consists largely of expressing deep 
thoughts in the most simple language. Of that art 
Jesus was master. 

The average audience is pretty sure to contain 
some hypocrites. In the circle of the twelve was 
Judas. The Pentecostal church contained Ananias 
and Sapphira. It is the preacher’s business, once in 
a while to hit the hypocrites, without being personal 
of course; to hit hypocrisy, let me say, and fo hit it 
hard. Todo so will likely cause trouble; it may even 
prove equivalent to stirring up a hornets’ nest. But 
what of it? He who is afraid of a sting or two is 
unworthy of the ministry. 

Sometimes it becomes the minister’s duty to tell 
his audience things which, he knows beforehand, 
they will not like. It requires no courage at all to 
denounce Modernism and Masonry before a Christian 
Reformed audience. A coward can do that. But to 


156 As To Being Reformed 


strike the lancet, be it in the spirit of love, into a 
congregational sore is quite a different matter. 

It is safe to assume that almost any audience con- 
tains a number of unconverted persons. They should 
be told to repent of their sins and to accept God’s 
sincere offer of free salvation in the Christ. This is 
sometimes called the evangelical note. I think that 
something of it should be heard in every sermon. If 
it is, I doubt the need of special evangelistic services. 


(3) About the Content of Sermons 

‘Preach the Word!” That was Paul’s charge te 
Timothy. It is also God’s charge to every preacher. 

This rules out book reviews, rehashes of magazine 
articles, and those topical sermons in which the text 
serves the same purpose as the diving-board at a 
swimming-pool. I recall a striking sermon of this 
type. The preacher announced as his text part of 
Psalm 91:6: “the destruction that wasteth at noon- 
day,” and then proceeded to moralize on The Perils 
of Middle Age. The text was a mere take-off. 

It is often said that, since it is the minister’s busi- 
ness to preach the Word, he must leave timely topics 
and problems of the day severely alone. But that is 
a mistake. It evidently results from undervaluation 
of the Word. The Bible is the book of every age. 
When God inspired holy men to write it, he had in 
mind the contingencies that would arise in succeed- 
ing centuries to the very end of time. Thus it has 
come about that in principle the Bible contains the 
solution of every problem with a religious or moral 


As To Being Reformed 157 


import. How marvelous a book! To illustrate, the 
Bible does not say how many hours a day a laborer 
should work, whether eight or nine or less. But it 
does offer in principle the solution of the problem of 
the relation of employers and employees. According 
to Ephesians 6:5-9 it consists of this: that both 
acknowledge Christ as Master. Similarly Isaiah 
11:9 tells us that the one solution of the problem of 
war is the knowledge of the Lord. Universal peace 
will be established when the earth is “full of the 
knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” 
To put it more generally, at the root of our problems 
lies sin. But the cross of Jesus Christ means the 
destruction of sin. And so the cross offers the ulti- 
mate solution of all our problems. 


Then let not the minister who begins his labors 
with the apostolic statement that he has deter- 
mined not to know anything save Jesus Christ and 
him crucified, be content with telling men merely how 
they may get to heaven. If he would do justice to 
the crucified Christ, he will have to get down to 
business and work out a tremendous program. 


However, let the preacher beware of the pitfalls 
of the so-called social gospel. As he deals with the 
problems of society, let him not forget that primarily 
he has to do with individuals. The only way in which 
society can be saved is through the salvation of the 
individuals constituting it. The minister must lead 
individual sinners to the foot of the cross. Nor may 
he be one-sidedly this-worldly in his preaching. 


158 As To Being Reformed 


Yes, this life too is important. But soon it will be 
ended. Death is approaching. Right now there is 
but a step between us and it. Then comes eternity. 
Where will we spend it? Will we pass through the 
pearly gates into the golden city? Or will we be 
assigned to the fire unquenchable? Those are stu- 
pendously serious questions. 


How very close is the relation of the printed Word 
to the personal Word! The whole Bible is about the 
Christ. The gist of the Old Testament is that he is 
~coming. The New Testament may be summed up in 
the simple statements that he has come and that he 
is coming again. Reformed preaching should be 
Theocentric. It should at once be Christocentric. 
Its central theme is God in Christ. 

I want to go on record as strongly favoring doc- 
trinal preaching in general, preaching on the Heidel- 
berg Catechism in particular. 

For two years I served a Reformed church which 
had had some of the very ablest preachers in the de- 
nomination as its ministers. They did preach doc- 
trine, no doubt very ably, but they did not preach 
catechismal sermons nearly every Sunday. The doc- 
trinal knowledge of the members of this church was 
considerably below the level of the average con- | 
gregation which has listened to catechismal preach- 
ing practically every Sunday over a period of years. 

Experience has taught me the wisdom of the rule 
of preaching a catechismal sermon each Sunday. If 
it is not adhered to, I doubt whether the rising gen- 


As To Being Reformed 159 


eration will continue Reformed. The specific doc- 
trines of our Reformed faith will be lost out of sight 
and consequently our young people will be scattered 
through other denominations. Our members will be 
swept off their feet by the numerous winds of error 
that blow. I greatly fear that many will fall victims 
to the fatal error of Modernism. If ever there was a 
time when regular catechismal preaching might be 
called an absolute necessity, that time is now. 

May I add that a mere exposition of doctrine is 
not asermon? All preaching should be practical. If 
doctrinal preaching is not at once ethical, it may 
even become dangerous. In the long run it will create 
the impression that orthodoxy is Christianity, which 
it is not. It is false to say that Christianity is not a 
doctrine, but a life. But it should never be forgotten 
that Christianity is a life as well as a doctrine. 


(4) About the Manner of Preaching 

If only the minister makes sure that he is preach- 
ing the Word, the method employed in constructing 
a sermon does not matter a great deal. There are 
several good methods. Will the reader pardon a 
brief personal reference? I shall never forget the 
advice given me by my father, a preacher of rich 
experience, when I was writing my first sermon. 
said he: “Be careful not to adopt a fixed method of 
sermonizing; keep varying your method.’’ 

I would suggest that we have more expository 
preaching. It is well to take a rather large portion 


160 As To Being Reformed 


of Scripture, perhaps a whole chapter, as text, and 
simply tell the audience what it means. 

Unity is essential in every sermon. To murder a 
text by cutting it up is a crime. When the preacher 
is through, the one big central message of the text 
should be evident to all. 

Much of our preaching is entirely too dry. It is 
no wonder at all that our audiences are often bored. 
It is almost invariably the preacher’s fault if people 
fall asleep in church. Sermons should scintillate 
with interesting passages. 

There is something radically wrong with the spir- 
itless preacher. If any message deserves to be 
brought in a spirited way, it is the minister’s. It 
should be evident to the audience that the preacher’s 
soul is stirred by the Holy Spirit. 

A sermon is a work of art. Its language should be 
choice as well as simple. The preacher should show 
his audience apples of gold in pictures of silver. 

The delivery should be natural, not pretentious. 
Who can imagine Jesus using a “preektoon’”? And 
let no preacher substitute excellency of speech for the 
excellency of power, which is of God. 


Christian Education 





fai) 


eee Dae 


lat) 


CO HAACP TE Reh 
CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 


N consonance with their doctrine of the covenant, 
Reformed Christians have usually stressed 
strongly the necessity of Christian education. 

That it is the paramount duty of Christian par- 
ents to bring up their children in the fear and ad- 
monition of the Lord, is indisputable. In our Re- 
formed churches parents, on holding their children 
to baptism, solemnly promise to discharge this duty 
to the utmost of their ability. 

Alas, how negligent many so-called Christian par- 
ents are in this regard! There are those who feel 
satisfied if they read from one to three chapters of 
the Bible a day without comment in the presence of 
their children. There are many who shift the burden 
of responsibility for the religious education of their 
children to the minister, the Sunday school teacher, 
and perhaps the teacher in the Christian day school. 
There are not a few who spend the time which should 
be devoted to leading their children to Jesus, in the 
pursuit of worldly pleasures. That is unspeakably 
sinful. 

Every Christian father should firmly declare with 
Joshua of old: “As for me and my house, we shall 
serve the Lord,” and then proceed to carry out the 


164 As To Being Reformed 


admonition: ‘‘Thou shalt teach these words diligently 
unto thy children and shalt talk of them when thou 
sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the 
way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest 
up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine 
hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine 
eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of 
thy house, and on thy gates.” The neglected family 
altar must be restored. 


The question is often asked with great alarm: : 
“What ails the young people of today?” I would 
reply with the question: ‘‘What ails their parents?” 
In many cases parents are to blame for it that chil- 
dren are going to hell. 

That the church has a duty with reference to the 
religious education of the youth of the covenant is 
self-evident. Our Reformed churches are wont to 
take care of this matter in three ways besides preach- 
ing. They are catechism classes, Sunday schools, and 
societies of the young people. 


The primary purpose of catechetical instruction is 
indoctrination. In this day of sects and heresies and 
indifference about doctrine, it should be attended to 
with utmost diligence. A Reformed church which 
neglects it is pretty sure to lose its hold on the young 
people. Its doctrinal destinctiveness too is in im- 
minent peril. And so it is cause for rejoicing that 
Christian Reformed Synods have taken steps to 
strengthen this work, and that much emphasis is 
placed on it by the professor of Practical Theology 


As To Being Reformed 165 


at the Western Seminary of the Reformed Church. 
My opinion of the Sunday school will strike many 
as ridiculously old-fashioned. I would shift it from 
the church to the home. I firmly believe that every 
home with children should be a Sunday school, every 
parent a Sunday school teacher. If this were the 
case, and all our children attended catechism classes 
and the Christian school besides, as they ought, there 
would be no need of church Sunday schools for the 
children of the covenant. And’ then the Sunday 
school could revert to the purpose for which Robert 
Raikes founded it: to give religious education to chil- 
dren whose spiritual welfare is being neglected. The 
advantages of this system seem to me to be apparent. 
It would compel parents to study the Bible. It would 
present to parents a beautiful opportunity to do 
their religious duty by their children in a systematic 
way. And it would make the Sunday school a much 
more effective evangelization agent than it is today. 
If it be objected that I am idealizing, that as a 
matter of fact the Sunday school is needed by the 
covenant youth because parents are neglecting the 
religious training of their children, catechism classes 
are not held in honor as they should be, and not 
nearly all the children of the church attend the Chris- 
tian school, then I grant readily that there is much 
truth in this contention. Therefore I would not sug- 
gest an abrupt change in the Sunday school. I would 
even favor making the most of it as it is. But I see 
no good reason why we should not steer in the direc- 


166 As To Being Reformed 


tion which I indicated and several why we should. 
It is my frank opinion that the present constitution 
of the Sunday school is the result of sinful neglect 
of the doctrine of the covenant. Because parents 
neglected their covenant duty by their children and 
the church failed to stress the distinction between 
the children of the covenant and those not of it, the 
Sunday school has become what it is today. Its 
character would be changed radically by a revival of 
the covenant idea. And for that we should pray and 
work. 


About our societies for the young people of the 
church I want to say just one thing. The emphasis 
should fall on the study of the Bible and its applica- 
tion to present-day life. These societies should never 
be allowed to degenerate into athletic clubs, for in- 
stance. I do not even think it wise to call the ses- 
sions prayer-meetings. To be sure, it is well, even 
necessary, that our young people be exercised in 
public prayer. But to devote more time to prayer 
than to Bible study is pretty sure to foster unhealthy 
mysticism. 

We come now to a subject on which there is con- 
siderable divergence of opinion between the Chris- | 
tian Reformed Church as a whole on the one hand, 
and the bulk of the membership of the Reformed 
Church in America on the other. It concerns the 
relation of the day school to religious education. 

I have often heard it said by Christian Reformed 
people that the great majority of the members of 


As To Being Reformed 167 


the Reformed Church are opposed to Christian in- 
struction. But that is slander, unintentional most 
likely, not malicious, yet slander. It is not true that 
the Reformed Church folk do not favor Christian 
education, while those of the Christian Reformed 
Church do. Both favor it. But there is a decided 
difference of opinion between them as to the method 
by which it should be secured. The latter insist on 
free Christian schools; the former desire in some 
sense to Christianize the public school. 

And now we stand face to face with what is not 
merely a petty squabble between two little denomina- 
tions, but what may well be called the greatest and 
most urgent problem confronting the American 
people as a whole. For some years much has been 
said and written about the religious education of 
young America. Today the whole nation is deeply 
interested in the subject. The burning question of 
the day is: how are our children going to get the 
necessary religious education? 

I am going to tabulate a number of conclusions on 
which many, perhaps the majority, of leading Amer- 
ican educators have by this time come to agree- 
ment. 


(1) The fact that practically no religious in- 
struction has for some time been given in the public 
schools will account in large measure for the gross 
ignorance of religion which is prevalent among our 
young people. 


168 As To Being Reformed 


The president of one of our universities recently 
had the boldness to call the public schools “pagan.” 


(2) The one sure foundation of morality is re- 
ligion. The only way to check effectively the lawless- 
ness which is found among young people is by re- 
ligious education. 

(8) It is pedagogically unsound to separate 
secular and religious education, to give purely sec- 
ular instruction in the school and to leave the matter 
of religious instruction entirely to the churches. The 
child must be given to understand that religion 
should suffuse the whole of life. 

Ex-president Hadley of Yale is credited with the 
statement: “I do not believe you are going to make 
the right kind of citizens by a godless education, and 
by then adding religion afterward. The idea is 
wrong. Education and religion must go hand in 
hand.” 


(4) The rights of parents in respect to the re- 
ligious education of their children take precedence 
over the claims of the state on the children for pur- 
poses of education. 

Very few educators of note favored the attempts 
recently made in Michigan and Oregon to compel 
children of certain ages to attend the public school. 

The defeat of the proposed child labor constitu- 
tional amendment is also significant in this connec- 
tion. Many opposed it on the ground that it would 
have placed too many restrictions on the rights of 
parents over their children. 


As To Being Reformed 169 


(5) Sectarian instruction may not be given in the 
public school. That public funds may not be used to 
foster the particular religion of some citizens, and 
that the rights of minorities should be respected, are 
two fundamental principles of our American com- 
monwealth. 

On these five points, as was said, there is rather 
widespread agreement in America today. 


But now, is it not exceedingly interesting that the 
advocates of our free Christian schools have for de- 
cades been stressing these very points and basing 
their pleas upon them? As a matter of fact we have 
here little else than a statement of some of the basic 
Reformed principles of education. 


May we conclude that many of the foremost peda- 
gogues of our land and the advocates of free Chris- 
tian schools have come to agreement? In a way yes, 
but in another way not at all. The conclusions which 
they draw from the aforenamed five points differ 
quite radically. 

The former conclude that the time has come for 
giving religious education in the public school. 

While many Christians hail this conclusion with 
great joy, I am willing to admit that I view it with 
apprehension. Let me say why. 

There is much talk about religious education, very 
little about Christian education, in the public school. 
There is reason for that. As was already indicated, 
it would be un-American to make the public school 
positively Christian. At best the religion of the 


170 As To Being Reformed 


public school will have to remain very general. Only 
such views may be taught as are common to Roman- 
ism, Orthodox Protestantism, Modernism, Judaism, 
and perhaps some more “‘isms.”’ But I wish to say 
emphatically that Christian parents may not be sat- 
isfied with such colorless religious education for their 
children. They must see to it that they get the color- 
ful religion of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. If 
the parents fail in this, there is grave danger that 
their children will be lost for the one true religion. 


It is possible that before long the Bible, the book 
of the Christian religion, will be read in public 
schools throughout the land. In a way that would 
be cause for joy. But is there not a real danger 
that this may lull Christian parents into a false sense 
of security and bring them under the illusionary spell 
that at last their children are getting a Christian 
education in the public schools? The Bible is wont 
to be read from ultra-Modernist pulpits, but this 
does not make these pulpits Christian. Bible-read- 
ing will not render the public school Christian any 
more than the reading of occasional passages from 
the Koran or stories from Greek or Roman mythol- 
ogy makes them Mohammedan or pagan. 

The religious instruction given in the public 
school will have to be neutral, of course. But can 
it be? I hold that it is psychologically impossible 
for any teacher to give perfectly neutral religious 
instruction. In a class in Bible in a public high 
school in a Michigan city the teacher recently ridi- 


As To Being Reformed Vit 


culed those who still hold that the Bible is God’s 
infallible word. The danger is far from imaginary 
that religious instruction in the public schools will 
be misleading. I would rather have my child attend 
a school which makes no attempt at religious educa- 
tion than one which teaches religion erroneously. 


We conclude that Christian parents are in sacred 
duty bound to provide free Christian schools for 
their children because there alone can they expect 
them to receive a positively Christian training. 

I want to mention a few additional reasons, mostly 
of a practical nature, why I favor the Christian 
school. 

I have noticed that some children attending the 
public school get under the spell of Modernism even 
before graduating from the junior high school, 
many more in high school. I am convinced that the 
instruction given in the public schools in many cases . 
breeds unbelief. 

Mixed marriages, one of the greatest evils under 
the sun, can often be traced back to associations 
begun at the public school. 

I have had abundant opportunity to observe that 
the pupils of Christian schools, with few exceptions, 
have incomparably more knowledge of the Bible than 
those in attendance at public schools. 

Churches are wont to establish positively Christian 
schools on their mission fields. Is it not the height 
of inconsistency for church-members to send their 
own children to non-Christian schools? I once heard 


17Z As To Being Reformed 


Dr. Samuel Zwemer tell a Christian audience that 
their children were getting less Christian education 
than many Mohammedan pupils at mission schools. _ 


Experience teaches that the pupils of our Chris- 
tian schools are more apt to remain loyal to their 
denomination than those of our Reformed children 
who attend the public schools. It is my firm con- 
viction that our future as positively Reformed 
churches is largely wrapped up in the free Christian 
schools. 

I believe that Christian schools train the best citi- 
zens. ‘They inculcate the very highest motive for 
loyalty to government and country; namely, the 
religious. He who loves this land for God’s sake is 
the highest type of American patriot. 

The question has repeatedly been asked of late 
whether the time has not arrived for us to put our 
Christian schools on a broader basis. Up to the 
present they have really been Reformed. Should we 
not make them more generally Christian and then 
invite the co-operation of orthodox Christians of all 
denominations? 

To me it seems that this question should be 
answered negatively. Let us by all means keep our 
Christian schools strictly Reformed! 

Of several reasons that might be given I name 
just two. 

As Reformed parents we believe that the covenant 
idea should permeate the whole training of our chil- 
dren. But how very evident then that the Baptists 


As To Being Reformed 173 


could not co-operate wholeheartedly with us in the 
matter of religious education, nor we with them. 
This is but one illustration. The point is this: doc- 
trinal differences would in some cases make co-opera- 
tion a practical impossibility. 

What settles the question for me is this. We are 
convinced that Calvinism is not merely a type of 
Christianity alongside other equally valid types. It 
is for us the fullest, the most nearly perfect, inter- 
pretation of Christianity in existence. Can we rest 
satisfied with giving our children anything short of 
the very best? 

This, however, does not preclude every possibility 
of co-operation. There is no good reason why our 
schools should virtually be denominational. There 
is every reason why the truly Reformed elements of 
such churches as the Reformed, the Christian Re- 
formed, the United and the Reformed Presbyterian, 
and the Presbyterian Churches both North and 
South, should join forces in this all-important task. 


Finally I want to say that we may not be 
satisfied with our Christian schools as they are today. 
They have progressed wonderfully in the last twenty- 
five years. But this is no time at all for us to sit 
back in smug complacency. 

We need better school boards. Let us put more 
men and women on them who have some knowledge 
of things educational. 

We need highly trained teachers. We want teach- 
ers who can and will teach, not merely men and 


174 As To Being Reformed 


women who think they have done their duty when 
they try to find out how well or how poorly the pupils . 
have taught themselves. We must have real peda- 
gogues. To this end a thorough normal course of 
our own is required. 

We need better equipment, including better build- 
ings. This will entail great financial sacrifice, but 
the welfare of our God«given children is at stake. 

We need centralization. In unity is strength. The 
Union of Christian schools is a fine attempt in this 
direction. 

Our schools should become more manifestly Chris- 
tian. A Christian atmosphere should fill the class- 
rooms and be in evidence on the play-grounds. That 
will be the case only if we take pains to secure teach- 
ers with noble Christian characters. 

We should by all means propagate the principles 
underlying our Christian schools. What is good for 
us and our children is good for others. We should 
let our light shine. 

And never may we rest until we have a complete 
system of Christian education, from the kindergar- 
ten up through the university. 


Church Discipline 


fel shh 


i 





CHAPTER XIII. 
CHURCH DISCIPLINE 


T GOES without saying that I do not purpose to 
give anything like an exhaustive treatment of the 
subject of church discipline. Relative to this sub- 
ject I just want to mention a few matters of which 
I believe our Reformed people need to be reminded. 


Let me begin by stating the underlying principle 
of Reformed or Presbyterian church government in 
general, of church discipline in particular. It is that 
Christ is pleased to rule his church through the 
instrumentality of the office-bearers, especially the 
elders. They derive their authority not from the 
members of the church, but from Christ himself. 
In our age and land of democracy there is danger 
that we may forget this. Many who call them- 
selves Reformed actually are forgetting it. It is 
supposed that the elders get their authority from the 
members, that they therefore are to carry out the 
wishes of the members. Fact is that they get it from 
Christ, through the channel of election by the mem- 
bers to be sure, yet from Christ, and their one aim 
should be to please the Lord Christ. Therefore the 
members must be subject to them for Christ’s sake. 


Church discipline concerns itself with two mat- 
ters: the doctrine and the life of church-members. 


178 As To Being Reformed 


For both phases there is a sound Biblical basis. Said 
Paul to Titus: “A man that is an heretic after the 
first and second admonition reject.’”—3:10. And the 
same apostle commanded the Christians at Corinth 
with reference to a certain fornicator: “Put away 
from among yourselves that wicked person.’’—I Cor- 
inthians 5:18. 

In this age of doctrinal indifference a great many 
churches are woefully lax in the exercise of disci- 
pline on heretics. A truly Reformed church will 
strongly stress purity of doctrine. Reformed 
churches that were worthy of their name have ever 
done so. The church that harbors heretics is not 
Reformed. And the church that tolerates depar- 
tures from the fundamental teachings of Christianity 
forfeits its claim to the name Christian. 


It has been charged that the Reformed churches 
emphasize purity of doctrine at the expense of prob- 
ity of life. In isolated cases there may have been 
ground for this charge. But surely it may not be 
laid at the door of Reformed churches generally. I 
make bold to say that of all churches the Reformed 
are most faithful in disciplining members leading 
godless lives. Is it not significant that Geneva was 
a model city from a moral viewpoint when the great 
dogmatician John Calvin controlled it? 

The exceeding seriousness of ecclesiastical censure 
seems to be little understood. Those who are being 
censured often make light of it. And, what is more 
surprising, even Consistories sometimes appear ig- 


As To Being Reformed 179 


norant of its full import. I have heard the opinion 
voiced that excommunication amounts to no more 
than exclusion from the denomination. Fact is that, 
when a Consistory places a member under the so- 
called first step of censure, it says in effect: “If you 
do not repent, we, to whom Christ, the King of the 
church, has entrusted the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven, will exclude you from the kingdom, will 
declare that you have no fellowship with Christ.” 


It follows that Consistories should be most careful 
in the exercise of discipline. Never should a mem- 
ber be censured until it is absolutely certain on Bib- 
lical grounds that he is guilty of a sin which, if not 
repented of, will land him in perdition. 


Mere errors of judgment then cannot be cause for 
discipline. It will not do to excommunicate a mem- 
ber because he feels that he can no longer subscribe 
to the Reformed doctrine of predestination or infant 
baptism or common grace. It would be a mistake 
too to censure a member who fails to celebrate the 
Lord’s Supper in a given church because he has 
honest scruples of conscience against the use of the 
individual cup. 

On the other hand, the slightest offense which is 
obviously a sin and is not repented of in spite of 
admonition, renders one worthy of discipline. Not 
only the overt act of adultery or murder is censur- 
able, but also the telling of a mean little lie. The 
former sins, if repented of, will be forgiven. The 
latter, if not repented of, renders one liable to eternal 


180 As To Being Reformed 


torment. This Dr. Bouwman of the Netherlands has 
in mind when he says in his book on Church Dtsct- 
pline that “every sin is censurable.” Parodoxically it 
may be said that no sin is censurable as such; but 
refusal to repent renders one worthy of discipline. 


The question might be asked what a Reformed 
church should do about a member who is no longer 
soundly Reformed in the matter of doctrine but 
otherwise gives evidence of being a sincere Christian. 
First of all the Consistory should, of course, try to 
convince him of his error. If this fails, he should 
be advised to unite with a denomination where he 
would fit in better. If for any reason this should 
prove impossible, it might be possible to tolerate him 
as a member on condition that he does not disturb 
the peace and unity of the church by propagating 
his erroneous views. But if he should prove unwill- 
ing to submit to this condition, I would say the only 
way out would be simply to erase his name from the 
rolls. 


I realize that the Church Order of Dordt makes 
no provision for such erasure. According to it the 
only way to deprive one of membership is by excom- 
munication. But it should be remembered that our 
Reformed fathers of the seventeenth century had 
little or no conception of the pluriformity of the 
church. They assumed that the Reformed Church 
was the only Christian church in the Netherlands. 
Today we hold a different view, due especially to the 
stress placed by Dr. A. Kuyper on the pluriformity 


As To Being Reformed 181 


of the church. One may differ theoretically on sev- 
eral points from our Reformed Confessions and yet 
be a Christian. Such a person can hardly be a mem- 
ber of a Reformed church. But surely it will never 
do to exclude him from the kingdom by excommuni- 
cation. 

Not only confessing members of the church may 
become the objects of discipline, but those as well 
who are members only by baptism. The theory of 
this is perfectly evident. It follows directly from 
the Reformed doctrine of the covenant that those 
who have received baptism are members of the 
church as an organization. It is not surprising then 
that Section 131 of the Constitution of the Reformed 
Church in America states this matter. But alas for 
the practice! 

I am convinced that one big reason why so many 
young people are right along being lost for the 
church is to be found in the fact that those who 
stray are so seldom disciplined. 

And is it not obvious that failure to embrace the 
covenant promises and to assume the covenant obli- 
gations by the making of confession of faith on 
arriving at years of discretion, is abundantly suffi- 
cient cause for discipline? Such a sin of omission 
is equally grievous as many a sin of commission 
commonly recognized as heinous. 

There is some misunderstanding about the pur- 
pose of church discipline. 

The purpose is not, as is often thought, to rid the 


182 As To Betng Reformed 


church of members who are more or less trouble- 
some. In almost every church there are one or two 
members who seem to feel in sacred duty bound to 
sow seeds of discord. I do not say that such persons 
should be left unmolested. To the contrary, the Con- 
sistory should take hold of them firmly and fear- 
lessly. But when the Consistory does this, it should 
not aim at their destruction, but at their conversion. 


The purpose of church discipline may never be 
to drive members into obedience through mere fear. 
To be sure, it is well to call the attention of erring 
members to the dire consequence of their persisting 
in sin. But fear apart from love is a poor guide. And 
obedience prompted by fear alone is not really obedi- 
ence. Let us purge out the leaven of Roman Cathol- 
icism! 

Church discipline is not a punitive measure in 
the same sense as penalties exacted by the state. It 
should ever be kept purely spiritual. For instance, 
when a murderer shows true repentance, the state 
will yet punish him because justice must be satisfied, 
but the church will no more think of punishing him, 
for God in Christ has forgiven him. And in case 
there is no repentance, the state will punish him 
without more ado, while the church will discipline 
him in hopes of leading him to repentance. 

What then is the purpose of church discipline? 
It is three-fold. 

It aims to uphold the honor of Christ, the Head 
of the Church. 


As To Being Reformed 183 


It seeks to maintain the purity of the church and 
of the holy sacraments just as far as possible. 


It is designed to save erring members. 


Let it be added here that the church keeps hoping 
and praying and laboring for the salvation even of 
the excommunicated. It stands ready with open 
arms to receive them as soon as they give proof of 
heartfelt repentance. Jesus said that an excommuni- 
cated person is to us “‘as a heathen man and a pub- 
lican.”’ Surely Christians do not give heathen and 
publicans the cold shoulder. They seek to lead them 
to the Savior. 

I sometimes hear church-members complain about 
the unfaithfulness of their Consistory in the matter 
of church discipline. Then I ask them whether they 
themselves are in the habit of exercising church 
discipline. They usually reply that it is none of 
their business. But itis. Church discipline should 
begin with the members. Every Christian should 
discipline himself. And the Christian who sees a 
brother stray should do his utmost to turn him from 
the error of his way. In case he fails, it becomes his 
duty to report the case to the Consistory. 

There is a matter of discipline on which the Re- 
formed Church in America and the Christian Re- 
formed differ. It concerns membership in oath- 
bound secret organizations, such as the Masonic 
order and other lodges patterned after it. 

It is important that the attitude of the two denom- 
inations toward the lodge be properly understood. 


184 As To Being Reformed 


To say that the Reformed Church in America 
tolerates lodge-members is very inexact. The Gen- 
eral Synod has left the matter to the individual 
Consistories. Some Consistories are firmly convinced 
that lodge-membership is inconsistent with church- 
membership, and they act accordingly. Other Con- 
sistories tolerate the members of lodges. And still 
others see no harm at ‘all in the lodge and conse- 
quently do not merely tolerate its members as mem- 
bers of the church, but are as glad to have them as 
any others. 


In this connection it should be noted that a number 
of Reformed Church leaders are very strongly op- 
posed to the lodge. In recent years the Reverend 
J. F. Heemstra and the late Reverend Peter Braak 
have held the presidency of the National Christian 
Association, which makes it its sole business to com- 
bat secret societies. 


Many seem to think that the Christian Reformed 
Church teaches that a lodge-member cannot possibly 
get to heaven. But that is a mistake. Emphatically, 
that is not the Christian Reformed view. It is a 
matter of general knowledge that the late Wm. J. 
Bryan was a Mason. But surely the most ardent 
opponent of Masonry would hardly have the courage 
to assign this champion of the Christian religion to 
perdition. The position of the Christian Reformed 
Church is simply this: membership in a lodge is in- 
consistent with Christianity; therefore no member 
of a lodge should be received as a member of the 


As To Being Reformed 185 


church of Jesus Christ; and if a church-member 
joins a lodge he must be instructed and admonished, 
and, in case he fails to give heed, disciplined. In 
other words, while it is possible on the one hand that 
a real Christian might commit the inconsistency of 
joining a lodge, yet, on the other hand, the lodge- 
member who persists in the error of his way after 
it has been clearly pointed out to him, thereby gives 
evidence of not being a Christian. 


I have heard it said with a little sneer that un- 
doubtedly there are a few lodge-members in the 
Christian Reformed Church. I simply want to affirm 
that not a single Christian Reformed Consistory will 
tolerate them. 


It has been said that the difference between the 
attitude of the two denominations toward secret 
societies is solely a matter of church polity: the Re- 
formed Church does not think it proper that Synod 
should dictate to the Consistories as to whom they 
should discipline, while the Christian Reformed 
church holds that Synod may do this; and this is 
all there is of it. But surely that view is altogether 
too naive. Fact is that the difference goes much 
more deeply. A large part of the membership of 
the Reformed Church in America, including many 
leaders, see nothing unchristian about membership 
in the lodge; the Christian Reformed Church as a 
whole is firmly convinced of the antichristian char- 
acter of Masonry and kindred organizations. There 
ts the rub. 


186 As To Being Reformed 


In view of what has just been said in the foregoing 
paragraph, I do not think it worth while to enter 
upon a long discussion of the points of church polity 
involved. They are not the real issue. At most they 
may be called a side-issue. There is not the least 
doubt in my mind that the policy of the two denom- 
inations was determined, not primarily by considera- 
tion of a church-governmental nature, but very 
directly by the estimation in which they held the 
lodge. The Synods of the Reformed Church did not 
see their way clear to condemn the lodge as anti- 
christian; therefore they left the matter of disciplin- 
ing lodge-members or not to the discretion of the 
Consistories. The Synods of the Christian Reformed 
Church were convinced that the lodge is antichris- 
tian; and therefore they decided once for all that 
lodge-members could not be tolerated in the church. 
Now, frankly, what is the use of arguing at length 
a few points of church polity when a much more 
fundamental issue is at stake? 


I do want to say that the policy of the Christian 
Reformed Church is fully justifiable. History tells 
us that Reformed Synods in the Netherlands have 
repeatedly pronounced membership in antichristian 
organizations censurable. The Synod of Leeuwarden, 
1920, resolved that there is no room for a member 
of the Reformed Church in an organization whose 
avowed purpose is to foster strife between capital 
and labor. And the Synod of Utrecht, 1923, decided 
that Consistories should censure those members who 


As To Being Reformed 187 


join the Independent Order of Odd Fellows and, in 
spite of admonitions, persist in this evil. 

I would also call attention to it that the policy of 
the Reformed Church in America leads to difficulties. 
If some Consistories tolerate lodge-members and 
others do not, then manifestly it may happen that 
one church will refuse to receive into its communion 
a person who comes as a member in perfectly good 
standing from another church of the same denom- 
ination. Some churches honor as ministers of Christ 
men whom other churches would not tolerate as 
members. And is it not somewhat inconsistent for 
ministers and elders who bar lodge-members from 
the Holy Supper in their own local church to cele- 
brate this Sacrament with lodge-members at the 
General Synod? 

Just why is lodge-membership censurable? 

It is not tenable that it is in every case sinful 
and censurable for a Christian to be a member of 
the same organization with non-Christians. 

Neither may a Christian be held personally re- 
sponsible for every sin committed by the organiza- 
tion to which he belongs. In some cases he may, by 
entering a protest, clear his own conscience. 

Therefore the Reformed churches of the Nether- 
lands and America both have consistently refused 
to pronounce membership in each and every labor 
union censurable. 

But when an organization is manifestly and avow- 
edly antichristian in its very nature, then the 


188 As To Being Reformed 


ehurch-member who joins it renders himself liable 
to discipline. 
Masonry and kindred lodges are antichristian. 


Strange to say, there are church-members in the 
lodge who are not at all aware of its antichristian 
character. They should be dealt with patiently. 
They need to be educated. But this does not mean 
that they may be tolerated in the church indefinitely. 
If they refuse to break off their connection with the 
lodge, they will eventually have to be excommuni- 
cated. 

The oaths of Masonry are such that no Christian 
may take them. Not only is their content horrible, 
but he who takes them promises obedience to “the 
constitution, laws and edicts” as well as “all due 
signs and summons sent from the lodge”, without 
being fully cognizant of what these may be. This 
amounts to giving divine honor to man. The taking 
of these oaths constitutes a transgression of the first 
as well as the third commandment of the Decalogue. 


There is blasphemy in the Masonic ritual. To 
mention-but one instance, on page 286 of Mackey’s 
Masonic Ritualist there is a picture of the Masonic 
keystone with this remark: ‘“‘The following passage 
of Scripture is here appropriately introduced: ‘This 
is the stone which was set at naught of you build- 
ers, which is become the head-stone of the corner.’ ” 
Words which the Holy Spirit applied to the Christ, 
Masonry applies to its keystone. 

We pass on to something more general. 


As To Being Reformed 189 


Masonry is a religion. This is indisputable. It 
claims to be a religion. ‘“‘“Masonry is a ‘religious insti- 
tution,’ its ceremonies are ‘part of a really religious 
worship.’ ””—-Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Masonry, 
page 10. ‘All the ceremonies of our order are pre- 
faced and terminated with prayer because Masonry 
is a religious institution.”—Mackey’s Lexicon, page 
371. 

‘As a religion it stresses two tenets. They are: the 
existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality 
of the human soul. One must believe these two 
truths in order to become a Mason. Now it must 
be observed that these tenets are common to all reli- 
gions the world over. That is very significant. 
Masonry boasts of the universality of its religion. 
“In its language citizens of every nation may con- 
verse; at its altar men of all religions may kneel; 
to its creed disciples of every faith may subscribe.” 
—Mackey’s Encyclopedia, page 162. 


But who is the God of Masonry? Is it the God 
of Christianity, the God of the Bible, the God whom 
Jesus Christ revealed and of whom he said: “I and 
the Father are one,” and again, ‘‘He that hath seen 
me, hath seen the Father”? Manifestly not. Mo- 
hammedans, Jews, Buddhists worship the God of 
Masonry as well as those who call themselves Chris- 
tians. From many Scriptural quotations in the 
Masonic ritual the name of Jesus Christ has been 
erased. On page 271 of Mackey’s Masonic Ritualist, 
for instance, the phrase “by Jesus Christ” is omitted 


190 As To Being Reformed 


from I Peter 2:5, and on the next page the explana- 
tion is given: “The passages are taken with slight 
but necessary modifications from the second chapter 
of the first epistle of Peter.”’ The prayers of the 
lodge too are not supposed to be offered in the name 
of Christ. The Sovereign Grand Lodge of Odd Fel- 
lows ruled in 1888 that to pray in Christ’s name in 
the lodge is “inexpedient, unwise, and unlawful.” 

It follows that the religion of the lodge is idolatry. 

And what about the lodge’s teaching concerning 
the future life? It is the plain teaching of Masonry 
that one may be saved by leading a virtuous life, in 
particular by practicing the morality of the lodge, 
without reference to Jesus Christ. Says Macoy in 
General History, Cyclopedia and Dictionary of Free- 
masonry, page 147: “The definitions of Freemasonry 
have been numerous, and they all unite in declaring 
it to be a system of morality, by the practice of which 
its members may advance their spiritual interests, 
and mount by the theological ladder from the lodge 
on earth to the lodge in heaven.” The following lines 
occur in the burial ceremony of the Modern Wood- 
men: 


“So let him sleep that dreamless sleep, 
Our sorrows clustering round his head. 
Be comforted, ye loved who weep. 
He lives with God. He is not dead.” 
But a doctrine of salvation which leaves out the 
Christ is antichristian. For his name is the only 
name given under heaven by which men may be 


As To Being Reformed 191 


saved. And he himself declared: “I am the way, 
the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father 
but by me.” 

I want to register a personal conviction. I doubt 
not that the lodge with its religion, altars, chaplains, 
priests, rituals, etc., is Satan’s imitation of Christ’s 
church. Satan has often been called God’s ape. 
Magic and witchcraft are his imitation of God’s 
miracles. Fortune-telling and sooth-saying are coun- 
terfeit prophecies. That so many men and women 
were possessed of demons during Jesus’ stay on earth 
may be accounted for on the score that Satan was 
attempting to mimic the incarnation. In much the 
same way that religious institution which is known 
as the lodge is Satan’s simulation of Christ’s church. 


“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbe- 
hevers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with 
unrighteousness? and what communion hath light 
with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with 
Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an 
infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God 
with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; 
as God hath said: ‘I will dwell in them, and walk in 
them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my 
people.’ ‘Wherefore come out from among them and 
be ye separate,’ saith the Lord, ‘and touch not the 
unclean thing.’ ‘And I will receive you and will be 
a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and 
daughters,’ saith the Lord Almighty.”—II Corinth- 
ians 6:14-18. 


Lf 
* 
‘ 


= ae ew 





Church Music 


A. } ! Cyn 
; be ) fay its hy “, 
7 f wy 


vey 


ie On 
i | 
i 


NW A 


fe pan 





CHAP TER XIV. 
CHURCH MUSIC 


HERE are those who hold that in a Reformed 

church only the Psalms should be sung in public 
worship. They advance at least two arguments for 
this position. One is derived from principle, the 
other from history. The Psalms, in distinction from 
most of the hymns, are based directly on God’s 
inspired Word. And the seceders of 1834 in the 
Netherlands, as well as the founders of the Christian 
Reformed Church in America in 1857, objected 
strenuously to the hymns that were in use in the 
churches from which they parted. 


While these arguments are not conclusive, it can- 
not be denied that they have some force. 


Nobody who knows anything about the subject 
claims that the Psalms as they are wont to be sung 
in our churches are verbally inspired. It is well 
known that they are a rather free rendering of the 
Psalms as found in the Bible. Yet it is evident that 
the men who composed our metrical versions of the 
Psalms were guided more directly by the Bible, and 
held themselves more closely to the Bible, than the 
writers of the great majority of the hymns. They 
must have had the Word of God right before them 
practically all the time. I believe that this fact goes 


196 As To Being Reformed 


a long way toward accounting for the greater rich- 
ness, depth, dignity, and solemnity of the Psalms. 
As for me, most of the hymns strike me as being 
rather superficial, several almost puerile, in com- 
parison with the Psalms. With this same thing in 
mind, certain leaders of the Reformed Churches in 
the Netherlands have suggested that, if hymns are 
to be added to the Psalms, these hymns should be 
based directly on certain portions of the New Testa- 
ment. 

It is true in a general way that our Reformed 
fathers were opposed to the singing of hymns in 
public worship. But it can hardly be contended 
truthfully that they condemned all hymns from prin- 
ciple. The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands 
have long used Henige Gezangen as found behind the 
Psalter. Their ministers have quoted hymns in the 
pulpit almost from time immemorial. And the ob- 
jections that were raised to the hymns usually con- 
cerned one specific point; viz., Arminianism. Be- 
cause several of the hymns contained traces of 
Arminianism our Reformed fathers rejected them, 
and in order to guard against this error, as well as 
others, in the future, they decided to hold themselves 
to the singing of the Psalms in public worship. Their 
motive deserves warm commendation. 


Today there is a strong movement in the Reformed 
Churches of the Netherlands for the addition of 
some hymns to the Psalter. It is backed by several 
of the most respected and trusted leaders. To men- 


As To Being Reformed 197 


tion just one, Dr. V. Hepp of the Free University of 
Amsterdam has come out in its favor. Such momen- 
tum has this movement gained that there is little 
doubt of its ultimate success. 

I would like to go on record as being heart and 
soul in favor of this project for the Christian Re- 
formed Church in America. I would retain the 
Psalms and add some carefully selected hymns. 

Instead of presenting a possible array of argu- 
ments, let me stress just one consideration. It alone, 
it seems to me, should already prove conclusive. 

Reformed theology teaches that the revelation of 
God which we have in the Bible is progressive. God 
saw fit to unfold his truth gradually before the eyes 
of men. The construction of the Bible closely 
resembled the growth of a flower. In very broad 
terms it may be said that in the Pentateuch we have 
the simple bud; in the prophets we find this bud 
much swollen; and in the New Testament the bud 
bursts into full bloom. Now the Psalms are, of 
course, part of the Old Testament. In all serious- 
ness I submit the question whether a New Testa- 
ment church may rest satisfied with these Old Testa- 
ment songs. To do so strikes me as a serious, not 
to say sinful, lack of appreciation of the fuller reve- 
lation of God which we possess in the New Testa- 
ment. 

Let me express the same thought in other words. 
The Old Testament teems with references to the com- 

ing Messiah. That holds of the Psalms too. And 


st 


198 As To Being Reformed 


yet the Christ is there only in shadows. In the New 
Testament we deal no longer with shadows, but with 
“the body’; the Christ himself puts in his appear- 
ance; we see, we hear, we touch him. Shall we of 
today be content with singing of the Christ only in 
terms of the dispensation of shadows? How can we? 
Very concretely expressed, I plead for the privilege 
of singing in our churches the blessed name of Jesus, 
which our fathers and mothers delighted to celebrate 
in that sweetest of all Dutch hymns: 


“Er ruischt langs de wolken een lieflijke naam, 
Die hemel en aarde vereenigt te saam. 
Geen naam is er zoeter en beter voor ’t hart; 
Hij balsemt de wonden en heelt alle smart”— 


and which we are wont to adore: 


“How sweet the name of Jesus sounds 

In a believer’s ear! 

It soothes his sorrow, heals his wounds, 
And drives away his fear. 

It makes the wounded spirit whole, 
And calms the troubled breast; 

*Tis manna to the hungry soul, 
And to the weary, rest.” 


No, I do not insist on these very hymns, but it is 
my sincere conviction that there ought to be intro- 
duced certain hymns which exalt the name Jesus 
as highly, or even more so. 

Or shall we, who live in this dispensation of the 
Spirit, sing only in terms derived from another dis- 


As To Being Reformed 199 


pensation, when the Holy Spirit was not yet poured 
out as he was on the day of Pentecost? 

Let it be added that in some of our Psalters we find 
appended to the Psalms fifty-two hymns “arranged 
and numbered agreeably to the fifty-two Lord’s Days 
of the Heidelberg Catechism.” By way of a conces- 
sion the Christian Reformed Church once upon a 
time decided to allow their use in certain eastern 
churches. Similarly the church has permitted the 
use of some hymns in the German churches of the 
West. The Synod of 1922 refused to retract these 
concessions, though an overture to that effect had 
been presented. Now this shows that our churches 
have never been unalterably opposed from principle 
to the use of hymns in public worship. 


But it is my opinion that we had better discard 
the fifty-two hymns referred to. Doctrinally they 
are good, but almost all of them are sadly lacking 
in poetic value. 


Just now choir singing in public worship threatens 
to become a bone of contention in the Christian Re- 
formed Church. 


So far as I know, nobody objects to a choir for 
the leading of congregational singing, but there are 
many who fear that choir singing will tend to lessen 
congregational singing. This fear is not without 
ground. In many churches round about us there 
is so much singing by the choir alone that the con- 
gregation hardly gets a chance, and when the con- 
gregation is asked to sing, a large portion of it, rely- 


200 As To Being Reformed 


ing on the choir to carry the hymn through to its 
conclusion, makes hardly any effort of its own. 
Surely, our churches should profit by this experience 
of others. Never should a church introduce a choir 
without taking strong measures to prevent this evil. 


There is another evil often found in connection 
with choir singing. Not infrequently men or women 
are asked to sing in a church choir without the least 
regard to their religion, simply because they are 
talented. And so it happens that individuals with- 
out any just claim to Christianity get up before the 
congregation to sing the most touching Christian 
hymns. How can they sing from the heart? Such 
singing is hypocrisy. It is a great evil in the church. 

Withal I think the Synod of Englewood, 1926, 
acted wisely when it refused to place an absolute ban 
on choirs. The Word of God neither prescribes nor 
condemns choir singing. Then the church should be 
exceedingly careful about legislating on the matter. 
says Article 32 of our Confession: “We reject all 
laws which man would introduce into the worship 
of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience 
in any manner whatever.” General rules are some- 
times required for the preservation of concord, but 
compelling laws in matters indifferent are hardly in 
order. It is difficult to see why, for instance, a song 
by a choir, while the offering is being received, would 
not be at least as edifying as an offertory by the 
organist. If there are special vocal talents in a 
‘church, I verily believe that God is glorified if they 


As To Being Reformed 201 


are employed in special singing during public. wor- 
ship. And I can easily see how one might argue 
with some success that not to do so is a sin of omis- 
sion. 


The solemn, stately music of the pipe organ seems 
especially well adapted for public worship. But it 
does not follow that the use of other instruments in 
the church is to be condemned. There can hardly 
be any objection from principle to the playing of 
an orchestra, or even a band, on various occasions. 
Likely there are those who will take exception to 
this statement, but I am convinced that they have 
no more ground under their feet than the man who 
refused to attend the exercises held in the church in 
connection with the dedication of a new organ be- 
cause, as he said, “Dagon is being dedicated”; or the 
people who consider piano music essentially worldly. 
We Calvinists are altogether too negligent about 
requisitioning the various fine arts, including music, 
for the glorification of the Author of all good and 
perfect gifts. Whenever I read about the instru- 
mental music of the Old Testament temple, and espe- 
cially when I read Psalm 150, where God’s people are 
told to praise him in his sanctuary with the sound 
of the trumpet, the psaltery and harp, the timbrel, 
stringed instruments and organs, loud cymbals and 
high sounding cymbals, I wonder why we employ so 
very few instruments in our churches. 


It is of course impossible to lay down a hard 
and fast rule as to how large a part of the time 


202 As To Being Reformed 


usually allotted for a Sunday service may be devoted 
to music, and how much of it should be reserved for 
the service of prayer and preaching. It is well 
known that in many churches music is cutting in 
on the sermon to an alarming extent. If we want 
to stay in line with Reformed tradition, which is in 
perfect harmony with the practice of the apostles, 
we may never allow the preaching of the Word to 
be crowded. The sermon must ever remain the big 
thing. 

But church music too is important. The Bible tells 
us that there is going to be much of music, both vocal 
and instrumental, in heaven. Let us have much of 
it in heaven’s portal, the church, and let us make 
it as heavenly as may be. Also in this matter “let 
us go on to perfection.” 


Should the Reformed and the Christian 
Reformed Churches Merge? 


¥ xy 

Py iu 
tk HeATY 

’ 1 





CHAPTER XV. 


SHOULD THE REFORMED AND THE CHRISTIAN 
REFORMED CHURCHES MERGE? 


N THE course of the past three years my opinion 

has often been asked regarding the advisability of 

a union of the Christian Reformed Church with the 

Reformed Church in America. My reply has always 
been guarded and will be now. 


The subject is timely. There is a mighty move- 
ment on foot toward church-union. It is co-exten- 
sive with Christianity. Very recently the Presby- 
terian, the Methodist, and the Congregational 
churches of Canada united. In England much is 
being said and written about the possible return of 
the Episcopalian Church to the Roman Catholic fold. 
And to mention but one other instance out of a pos- 
sible dozen, the merging of the Reformed Church 
in America, once Dutch, with the Reformed Church 
in the United States, originally German, has been 
seriously suggested. 


It appears then that, if steps should be taken 
toward the organic union of the Reformed and the 
Christian Reformed churches, this would be in har- 
mony with the spirit of the age. That in itself may 
strike some persons as a conclusive argument for 
union. Those who have fallen under the spell of 


206 As To Being Reformed 


the exceedingly superficial evolutionary view that 
day by day in practically every way the world is 
getting better and better, quite naturally prefer the 
new to the old, are anxious to get on the inside of 
almost any new movement, and jump to the con- 
clusion that the spirit of the age must be commend- 
able. 

As a matter of fact the spirit of the age may be 
largely evil. 

The advocates of church-union in general like to 
quote certain sentences from the Savior’s interces- 
sory or high-priestly prayer as recorded in John 
Seventeen. “Holy Father,” said Jesus, “keep through 
thine own name those whom thou hast given me, 
that they may be one as we are’; and again: 
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also 
which shall believe on me through their word: that 
they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and 
I in thee, that they also may be one in us, that the 
world may believe that thou hast sent me. And 
the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, 
that they may be one, even as we are: I in them, and 
thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” 

Jesus is praying here for the union of all believers. 
It is concluded that Christians may not rest until 
all Christian churches on the face of the globe shall 
have been amalgamated. But it may he seriously 
questioned whether the conclusion follows from the 
premise. If anything is perfectly obvious, it is that 
Jesus had in mind spiritual unity. But spirit- 


As To Being Reformed 207 


ual unity is not identical with oneness of organiza- 
tion. I dare say that the spiritual oneness of be- 
hevers does not even require that they all be mem- 
bers of the same organization. They might be in 
different organizations and yet be one at heart. It 
is also possible for many persons to be in one organ- 
ization and to be far from one. 


Concretely it follows that it cannot be shown con- 
clusively from John Seventeen alone that the Re- 
formed and the Christian Reformed churches should 
merge. If each should insist on maintaining its 
separate denominational existence, violence would 
indeed be done to a superficial interpretation of 
Jesus’ words, but not necessarily to his words them- 
selves. 

It is rather generally assumed today that it is an 
evil that the Christian church is divided into denom- 
inations. No doubt there is much that is evil about 
it. ‘Sin has done more than anything else to split 
up the Christian church. History tells us that espe- 
cially the sins of heresy and selfishness have wrought 
division. Then too, time and again new denomina- 
tions have been started for reasons so slight that 
they could hardly be called more than flimsy pre- 
texts. And who will deny that undue denomina- 
tional fervor often leads to narrowness, intolerance, 
even bitterness? 

But there is another side to the matter. There are 
some perfectly natural reasons why the followers of 
the Christ are grouped in different denominations. 


208 As To Being Reformed 


Geography has much to do with it. Was it not 
largely for geographical reasons that the Dutch Re- 
formed Church in America very early in its history 
declared itself ecclesiastically independent from the 
State Church of the Netherlands? National traits 
are a more important factor. It would seem that the 
phlegmatic Hollander and the highly emotional 
African had better continue, for the time being at 
least, to worship in separate denominations. To 
mention but one more matter, there is the limita- 
tion of our human minds to be considered. Not one 
of us is able to grasp the full truth of God. Neither 
can any one group of Christians do it. Every group 
of Christians is more or less one-sided in its concep- 
tion of the truth. In this dispensation such is simply 
inevitable. And now it is well that one denomination 
stresses certain truths, another others, a third still 
others, and so on. 


We conclude that no one may say that, because 
denominationalism as such is an evil, the Reformed 
and the Christian Reformed churches must get to- 
gether in organic union. 


It cannot be disputed that, on the whole, the Mod- 
ernists of our day favor the cause of church-union 
more strongly than do the Fundamentalists. The 
reason is apparent. Modernists care little about 
creeds and doctrines. But these largely constitute 
the barriers between denominations, Which is only 
another way of saying that much of present-day 
clamor for church-union must be accounted for on 


As To Being Reformed 209 


the score of doctrinal indifference. How readily 
men say that this doctrine or that is ‘‘non-essential’’! 
How often one hears it suggested that, since the 
beliefs which the denominations have in common 
are so much more numerous than the views which 
differentiate them, the latter should be suppressed. 


It follows that no suggestion toward church-union 
should be acted on hastily. The doctrinal issue 
should always be weighed carefully. 

Whether the men and women who in 1857 severed 
their connection with the Dutch Reformed Church 
and organized the Christian Reformed Church were 
justified in taking this action, has been the subject 
of frequent and warm debates. It might seem that 
on the correct answer to this question depends what 
answer must be given to the inquiry written over 
this chapter. More than once has it been contended 
that, since the ‘‘seceders’” of 1857 erred, it is the 
manifest duty of their children to rectify their mis- 
take and to return in a body to the mother church. 


However, the case is not as simple as all that. I 
am by no means ready to grant that the ‘‘seceders” 
were mistaken. But let us assume for the sake of 
argument that they were, that they should have 
continued in the Reformed Church. Does sound logic 
then compel us to conclude that the two denomina- 
tions are in sacred duty bound to merge forthwith? 
Not at all. Even if sufficient reasons for dissen- 
gion had been lacking in 1857, they might very well 
have arisen since that time. 


210 As To Being Reformed 


In order to make the point perfectly clear, let us 
make another assumption. Let us assume, again for 
the sake of argument, that conditions in the Re- 
formed Church were so thoroughly bad in 1857 that 
the action of the so-called seceders was fully war- 
ranted. It would not necessarily follow that the Re- 
formed and the Christian Reformed churches should 
today continue as two denominations. It is conceiv- 
able that conditions in the former church might 
since have grown so much better that every good 
reason for dissension had disappeared. 


In a word, no conclusive argument either for or 
against the union of the two churches can be derived 
from 1857. He who seeks to answer the question 
before us will have to reckon with the present rather 
than the past. 


I believe that, as a matter of fact, the Reformed 
and the Christian Reformed churches have since 
1857 been drifting apart. To be frank, it seems to 
me that there is more reason for separate denomina- 
tional existence now than then. In the last seventy 
years the Reformed Church has slowly on been los- 
ing its Reformed character, while the Christian Re- 
formed Church has, generally speaking, grown more 
soundly Reformed. 

Some of the reasons presented by the “‘seceders” 
of 1857 for their action were, to say the least, not 
very weighty. Measured by our present standards, 
the founders of the Christian Reformed Church were 
in some respects rather narrow. Every student of 


As To Being Reformed 211 


the subject will have to admit that. With reference 
to certain little matters, differences between the two 
churches have by this time disappeared. 


Under no circumstances should prejudice be 
allowed to keep the Reformed and the Christian Re- 
formed churches apart. And yet, how much of pre- 
judice there is on both sides! I have heard mem- 
bers of the Christian Reformed Church say that the 
Reformed Church exercises hardly any discipline at 
all. Such will be interested to know that the Synod 
of 1925 reported a loss through discipline of sixty- 
seven communicant members in a year. During my 
stay in the Reformed Church I was often pained and 
occasionally amused by views prevalent about the 
Christian Reformed Church. Once a sister said to 
me that, seeing I came from the “seceder” church, 
she wondered how I could favor missions. A brother 
once told me that a member of the Christian Re- 
formed Church had related to him that he had seen 
black snow on the day of his conversion, and our 
good friend of the Reformed Church concluded that 
this conversion must be typically Christian Re- 
formed. There are those in the Reformed Church 
who think there is no difference between the Chris- 
tion Reformed Church and the ‘‘Nederduitsch Gere- 
formeerde Kerk.” Many Reformed people regard 
us as a very ignorant, backward, narrow-minded, 
uncultured lot. Almost invariably we are called 
“seceders,” in spite of our repeated protest that we 
do not deserve that appellation. 


212 As To Being Reformed 


So far this chapter has been of a somewhat ramb- 
hing nature. Let me now come more directly to the 
point. 

In his book Landmarks of the Reformed Fathers, 
Mr. Wm. O. Van Eyck greatly deplores the fact that 
the Reformed and the Christian Reformed churches 
exist side by side as separate denominations. “On 
the road from Holland to Drenthe, there is, or was, 
a hill, about three miles east of Holland, whence 
could be seen, some forty years ago, in different 
directions, the white steeples of some ten or twelve 


Dutchichurchess sy)... There are today some fifty 
of these Dutch churches in Ottawa and Allegan 
counties alone..... But upon closer examination, 


the fact stares us in the face that among these Hol- 
landers we find at each place not one—but two— 
churches, sometimes at swords’ points, and bitter 
in their relations.” Disputes among these churches 
he calls “religious wars which have disgraced the 
Hollanders in the West.” He even speaks of “the 
terrible state of affairs that has existed among us 
for sixty years or more.’’—pages 39, 40. 


Without assuming responsibility for every one of 
Van Eyck’s expressions, who will not admit that, on 
the face of it, it is a great pity that the Christian 
Reformed and the Reformed people of the middle 
West could not from the start have continued to- 
gether in one denomination? Who was to blame 
for the fact of the separation does not concern us 
now. But oh, that it never had come to pass! Were 


As To Being Reformed 213 


not the members of these two churches of one blood 
and of one confession? How much wrangling among 
brethren and blind prejudice might have been 
avoided! What duplication would have been pre- 
vented! How many men and women and how much 
money might have been spared for the larger work 
of the kingdom! How much more influence might 
have been exerted with a united front! And—may 
we not add?—how much more glory would have 
accrued unto the King of the church! 


Reformed leaders in the Netherlands often call 
it a sin that the Reformed Christians of that land 
are ecclesiastically divided. It is maintained that 
it is their duty before God to get together as soon 
as possible in one body. I dare say the same thing 
about the truly Reformed Christians of these United 
States. There is sin in their continuing divided. 
Once more, who is at fault I shall not try to decide, 
though I may as well record the opinion that all 
the blame may not be fixed on one group. But so 
much is very certain: there is something wrong 
somewhere. 

What a happy day it would be on which all the 
soundly Reformed Christians of America, now scat- 
tered through different denominations, would organ- 
ize in one big Reformed church! 

From what has just been said some reader might 
conclude that it is my conviction that the Reformed 
and the Christian Reformed churches should merge 
as soon as may be. But that does not follow. To 


214 As To Being Reformed 


say that the Reformed Christians in the two denom- 
inations should get together is quite a different thing 
from saying that the two denominations should com- 
bine. Obviously not every member of the two 
churches is a thoroughbred Calvinist. 

And yet, who would not bless the day, if, without 
the sacrifice of any worth-while principle, these two 
organizations would coalesce, and Ephraim would 
no more envy Judah, nor Judah vex Ephraim, but 
together they would fly upon the shoulders of the 
Philistines? 

I said: “without the sacrifice of any worth-while 
principle.” But there is the rub. May I be so bold 
as to name three points which to my mind should 
be firmly insisted on as conditions for amalgama- 
tion? 

In the matter of doctrine, wholehearted subscrip- 
tion, not only to the Christian fundamentals, but 
to the Reformed Standards as well, should be de- 
manded. | 

In the matter of church government, it would 
have to be agreed that no member of the Masonic or 
any similar secret order could be tolerated as a 
church-member. 

As a guarantee for the future, regular catechismal 
preaching and thorough catechetical instruction 
should be insisted on. I would add that, while the 
Christian school is not an ecclesiastical institution, 
yet an understanding regarding this important mat- 
ter would be very desirable. 


As To Being Reformed 215 


I am sure that these terms would not seem accept- 
able to a rather large part of the Reformed Church 
membership. In The Christian Intelligencer of Feb- 
ruary 24, 1926, the Reverend E. C. Vanderlaan, 
for one, says plainly that, because of its “rigid 
theological conservatism,” he would not favor union 
with the Christian Reformed Church. There is good 
reason to believe that he represents a considerable 
group. But it is better for the two churches to stay 
apart than to get together in a union which is not 
a union. “Can two walk together, except they be 
agreed ?” 

I believe that the all-wise God overrules the affairs 
of men in such a way that he frequently employs 
even their sins unto the advancement of his glorious 
kingdom. Remarkable instances of this sort of 
thing are recorded in Holy Writ. At the beginning 
of their second missionary journey, Paul and 
Barnabas got into a dispute as to who was to accom- 
pany them. Barnabas favored his relative John 
Mark. Paul was strongly opposed to him because 
he had failed to complete the first journey with them. 
The argument continued to the point of bitterness. 
The outcome was that Barnabas and Mark went in 
one direction, while Paul, with Silas, chose another 
field of operations. So two missionary bands went 
out instead of one. God’s overruling providence 
used the sins of his servants unto the furtherance 
of the Gospel. 

Is not much the same thing taking place in the 
case of the Reformed and the Christian Reformed 


216 As To Being Reformed 


churches? To be sure, in many ways it would seem 
that the division is a detriment to the cause of Christ. 
But on the other hand it looks to me that God is 
employing the two groups for the performance of 
two exceedingly important tasks, neither of which 
might receive quite the emphasis which it now re- 
celves, if the groups were one. 

God’s special purpose for the Reformed Church 
in America seems to be that it should push the cause 
of missions with might and main. 

God’s special purpose for the Christian Reformed 
Church seems to be that it should preserve, and per- 
haps develop, the precious heritage of distinctly Re- 
formed doctrines and principles. 

Does it follow that the Reformed Church may neg- 
lect Calvinism and the Christian Reformed Church 
missions? God forbid! 

Or may it be concluded that the Reformed mem- 
bers of the two churches need put forth no efforts 
in the direction of union? Again we answer, No! 
That God overrules our sins to a good end obviously 
does not justify our continuing in sin. 

Some time after the altercation referred to above, 
Mark again became a helper of Paul. From his 
Roman prison the apostle wrote to Timothy: “Take 
Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable 
to me for the ministry.” May the time come soon 
when the genuinely Reformed Christians in the Re- 
formed and Christian Reformed churches will labor 
together for the cause of Christ in one organiza- 
tion! 


Calvinism’s Glory and Present Opportunity 


a 











elk ' 
i 

; 
A 





‘ 


s 


yt 
Uri 
Og 
ny! 





CHAPTER XVI. 
_CALVINISM’S GLORY AND PRESENT OPPORTUNITY 


AYS Dr. B. B. Warfield in his article Calvinism in 
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Reli- 
gious Knowledge: “It must be confessed that the for- 
tunes of Calvinism in general are not at present at 
their flood. In America, to be sure, the controversies 
of the earlier half of the nineteenth century com- 
pacted a body of Calvinistic thought which gives way 
but slowly. .... And in Holland recent years have 
seen a notable revival of the Reformed consciousness, 
especially among the adherents of the Free Churches, 
which has been felt as widely as Dutch influence 
extends. .... But it is probable that few ‘Calvin- 
ists without reserve’ exist at the moment in French- 
speaking lands: and those who exist in lands of Ger- 
man speech and Eastern Europe appear to owe their 
inspiration to the teaching of Kohlbrugge. Even in 
Scotland there has been a remarkable decline in 
strictness of construction ever since the days of 
William Cunningham and Thomas J. Crawford.” 
Without doubt this statement is correct, but I 
would add that since Dr. Warfield wrote his article 
there has been an interesting, if not remarkable, 
revival of Calvinism in Hungary. 
Though Calvinism can hardly be said to be flour- 


220 As To Being Reformed 


ishing today, yet it seems to me that the outlook is 
far from discouraging if only the adherents of this 
system will avail themselves of their present oppor- 
tunity. As I see it, just now the door is open for 
the propagation of several principles which, being 
characteristically Reformed, may be called the glory 
of Calvinism. 


' To a few of these principles and the timeliness of 
their promulgation I would call attention. 


(1) It is quite generally admitted that Calvin- 
ism is a highly intellectual type of Christianity. This 
does not mean that it is intellectualistic. Some in- 
dividuals who call themselves Calvinists may be 
intellectualistic; Calvinism itself is not. Reformed 
theology has always insisted that mere knowledge 
about God is insufficient, that spiritual knowledge 
of God is essential to salvation. But it has also 
strongly stressed the necessity of Scriptural knowl- 
edge for the saving knowledge of God. Therefore 
the Reformed churches have ever made much of the 
religious education of their members. In distinction 
from the mysticism of various sects and the emo- 
tionalism of Methodism, they have upheld the pri- 
macy of the intellect. And they are justly proud of 
John Calvin’s system of theology, which gives evi- 
dence of so remarkable intellectual acumen. | 

How very much is being made today of education! 
Some twenty-five years ago only a small percentage 
of eighth-grade graduates went on to high school. 
‘Today almost all do. Our colleges are being over- 


As To Being Reformed 221 


whelmed by a flood of students. Not a few are limit- 
ing the number of their students by the application 
of severe intellectual tests. That means a rise of 
educational standards. Much might be added here, 
but enough has been said to show that the intellects 
of men and women are being trained much more 
generally than was the case a short time ago, and 
that an attempt is being made to train them more 
highly too. 

Now I know very well that as to content the in- 
struction given in many of our educational institu- 
tions leads away from Calvinism. Yet I would sub- 
mit the question whether this intellectual age is not 
the psychological time for the propagation of that 
highly intellectual religion which we call Calvinism. 
Of this I am certain: Calvinism is laughed out of 
court in many schools because it is not understood. 
And that it is not understood is largely the fault 
of us Calvinists. 


(2) Calvinism is not merely a theology; it is a 
world-and-life-view built upon a theological prin- 
ciple; viz., the sovereignty of God. It has been 
described as ‘‘the entire body of conceptions, theo- 
logical, ethical, philosophical, social, political, which 
under the influence of the master mind of John Cal- 
vin, raised itself to dominance in the Protestant 
lands of the post-Reformation age, and has left a 
permanent mark not only upon the thought of man- 
kind, but upon the life-history of men, the social 
order of civilized peoples, and even the political 


222 As To Being Reformed 


organization of states.”” How masterfully Dr. Kuyper 
set forth Calvinism as a world-and-life-view in his 
Stone Lectures of 1898! Says Warfield in the article 
already referred to: “Calvinism has dug a channel 
through which not merely flows a stream of theo- 
logical thought, but also surges a great wave of 
human life.” In other words, Calvinism insists that 
man should be religious not only in such devotional 
activities as praying, Bible-reading, and church- 
going, but in all his living: in business, in politics, 
in recreation, and so on. As Paul put it: “Whether 
therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do 
all to the glory of God.” 


Is it not precisely this kind of religion which the 
modern man demands? People are more than tired 
of a mere Sunday religion. Even Modernists are 
clamoring for a religion which shall embrace all of 
life and put its stamp on man’s every activity. Let 
us tell the world that we have it! 


(8) The glorious doctrine of Christian liberty 
was stressed by all the Reformers over against 
Roman Catholic legalism, but to John Calvin belongs 
the honor of thinking it through fearlessly to its 
logical conclusions. He departed more radically than 
did Martin Luther from the hierarchical institutions 
of the church. On Galatians 5:1: “Stand fast there- 
fore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us 
free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of 
bondage”, he comments: “If men lay upon our 
shoulders an unjust burden, it may be borne; but if 


As To Being Reformed 223 


they endeavor to bring our consciences into bond- 
age, we must resist valiantly, even to death.” That 
Holland became the cradle of both political and 
religious liberty was due largely to the fact that the 
Reformation in the Netherlands bore a distinctly 
Calvinistic stamp. 

At the same time, its high spirituality has ever 
kept Calvinism from the error of Antinomianism. 
The Anabaptists of the Reformation age did go to 
this extreme; the true Calvinists never did. For 
centuries it has been customary in many Reformed 
churches to read the Law of God every Sabbath. 
And has not Calvinism come to be regarded as the 
very antonym of Libertinism? 

It is a well known fact that a wave of lawlessness 
and licentiousness is rolling over the face of the earth 
today. Everywhere the question is being asked: 
“What is going to stem the tide?”? Some would add 
rule to rule and precept to precept. But that will 
not avail. It may well make things worse. As laws 
are multiplied, transgressions will the more abound. 
Others would let things go from bad to worse and 
from worse to worst, until humanity becomes dis- 
gusted with its own bacchanalia and reacts. But 
that advice is hardly Christian. 

The one thing that can save our sin-ridden and 
law-burdened race is Christianity, in particular 
Christianity as interpreted by Calvinism. For it 
points the way to freedom both from the law and 
from sin. That alone is liberty. It is full liberty. 


224 As To Being Reformed 


“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy- 
laden, and I will give you rest; for my yoke is easy 
and my burden is light.” “Christ has delivered us 
from the law.” “If the Son shall have made you 
free, ye shall be free indeed.” “And where the Spirit 
of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 


(4) Closely associated with Christian liberty is 
Calvinistic democracy. No man has authority over 
any other except God lend him authority. The rich 
may not lord it over the poor because of his wealth; 
the strong may not boss the weak because of his 
brawn; the learned may not rule the ignorant be- 
cause of his superior intelligence. In a real sense all 
men are equal. Only when it pleases the sovereign 
God to place certain men over us in authority, do 
we owe them obedience. And then we should obey 
willingly for God’s sake. 

That these United States have from the very start 
been a republic is no accident. The foundations of 
the American commonwealth were largely Calvin- 
istic. It is also due in part to Calvinism that there 
is so much of democracy in the governments of Eng- 
land and the Netherlands. The Presbyterian or 
Calvinistic form of church government too excels in 
democracy. Ministers are not assigned to churches 
by bishops, but are called by Consistories after the 
members have indicated their preference. And much 
stress is wont to be placed on “the office of believers.” 
A truly Reformed church will never favor the rich 
over the poor. For a man to presume to run a 


As To Being Reformed 225 


church just because he has money, is an abomination. 

It has often been said that the world war was 
fought in order “to make the world safe for democ- 
racy.’ By this time we have learned to take this, 
as well as many other war slogans, with several 
grains of salt. But it can hardly be denied that 
there have followed in the wake of the war a dis- 
respect of aristocracy and a rising spirit of democ- 
racy. To be sure, many preach unsound democracy; 
they forget that God stands above the people and 
that rulers derive their authority not from the peo- 
ple, but from the sovereign God through the people. 
Yet ours is the age of democracy. 

And now is our opportunity to propagate Calvin- 
istic democracy. If now we proclaim it from the 
housetops, it would seem that men would lend us 
their ears. 


(5) The doctrine of common grace may be called 
one of the pillars of our Calvinistic world-and-life- 
view. It tells us that even unregenerated men can 
do natural, civic, and moral good. 

Today there are many noble movements afoot 
which are sponsored, at least in part, by men and 
women of the world. I just mention the attempt to 
stamp out, or at least curb, traffic in liquor; the cry 
which is going up against war; the League of 
Nations and the World Court; the noble work of the 
Red Cross and numerous social welfare organiza- 
tions. | 

It is, of course, a simple matter to find fault with 


226 As To Being Reformed 


these movements. Lots of faults cleave to them. 
Yet our Reformed doctrine of common grace enables 
us to see much good in them also, consequently to 
co-operate, and, when possible, even to seek to guide 
in the right direction. 


(6) Well may Calvinism boast of its catholicity. 
Anybody who is at all acquainted with its history 
knows how perfectly ridiculous is the supposition, 
which some of our Holland people seem to harbor: 
that it takes a Dutchman to be a good Calvinist: 
Calvin himself did not have the good fortune of being 
Dutch. He was French by birth. Reformed theol- 
ogy originated in Switzerland. From there it spread 
in the Reformation period to France, and along the 
Rhine through Germany to Holland, eastward to 
Bohemia and Hungary, and westward, across the 
channel, to Great Britain. At the same time Luth- 
eranism was largely confined to Germany and the 
Scandinavian countries. 

Internationalism is now in the air. In saying this, 
I am not forgetting that there is in some lands a 
revival of nationalism. Just think of Italy. Yet 
the scanning of contemporaneous literature leads me 
to believe that before long the spirit of international- 
ism will be decidedly in the ascendancy. World Sun- 
day school and missionary conventions, and such 
gatherings as the well nigh ecumenical council of 
Christian churches held at Stockholm in 1925, stir 
this spirit inestimably. de 
. Dr. Hepp of the Free University of Amsterdam, 


As To Being Reformed 227 


on his recent visit to America, lectured in several] 
places on International Calvinism. After his return 
to Holland he published this lecture in amplified form 
in De Reformatie. How timely a subject! Surely, 
now is the time to promulgate on an international 
scale the principles of catholic Calvinism. 


(7) Calvinism is essentially progressive. Sad 
to say, many who pose as adherents of this system 
are hide-bound reactionaries. They fail to under- 
stand Calvinism. They speak of what they know 
not. Calvinism is progressive. 


Was not Calvin much more radical in his depart- 
ures from Roman Catholicism than Luther? It is 
a fact, altogether too little remembered, that our 
Reformed fathers, in adopting the Confessions, in- 
tended that they should be revised from time to time 
in accordance with the additional light which the 
church would receive on the truths of Scripture. Re- 
formed theology speaks of the progressive guidance 
of the church in the truth by the Holy Spirit. Dr. 
Kuyper used to say: “Ecclesia reformata est refor- 
manda”, which means in effect that a church, in order 
to merit the name Reformed, must keep on reform- 
ing. In the April 2, 1926, issue of De Reformatie, 
Dr. Hepp presented to the Reformed Churches in 
the Netherlands a seven-point program of progress. 
It suggests an improved translation of the Bible, an 
extension of the Confession, a pleading for healthy 
mysticism, a revision of the church’s liturgy, the 
addition of some hymns to the Psalter, the reorgan- 


228 As To Being Reformed 


ization of city churches, and the adoption of a defi- 
nite policy with reference to so-called modern cul- 
ture. 

Progressiveness may almost be called the watch- 
word of our times. Humanity is boasting of the 
progress already achieved and is pressing on to more. 
Here again there is abundant cause for criticism. 
There is much of false progressivism. Instead of 
building on firm foundations already laid, many are 
trying to demolish these foundations in the name of 
progressiveness. In unpardonable superficiality some 
reject the old simply because it is old and prefer the 
new for no other reason than that it is new. But 
after all has been said, the fact remains that men 
everywhere are insisting on progress. They want a 
progressive religion too. And they are entitled to 
one that is truly progressive. Shall we then not be 
up and doing to present the claims of our progressive 
Calvinism ? 

Extreme progressivism is usually called radical- 
ism. There is much of it today, so much that many 
are becoming alarmed. And there is reason for 
alarm, for it would pluck up things by the roots. 
Shall we oppose it with the conservatism of stand- 
patters? That would be poor policy indeed. It 
would only provoke the radical to radicalism more 
dangerous still. The thing for us to do is to sub- 
stitute for the morbid radicalism of the day a healthy 
radicalism: for the radicalism that tears up things 
by the roots, radicalism that goes to the root of 
things. Such is the radicalism of Calvinism. 


As To Being Reformed 229 


I have attempted to point out suggestively that 
several of the essential features of Calvinism are in 
demand today. If that contention is true, then now 
is the time for their propagation. 


A few words may be added with special reference 
to America. In our land Calvinism is not at all pop- 
ular. The outlook for Calvinism in the United States 
is in many ways dark. But I am convinced that this 
is largely the fault of Calvinists. Folk round about 
us misunderstand Calvinism because we do not tell 
them plainly what it stands for. And what high 
regard for Calvinism might we not instill into their 
minds if we should take pains to point out to them 
that this great nation owes many of its institutions, 
much of its glory, and in large measure its very 
founding to Calvinism! In What Calvinism Has 
Done for America, J. C. Monsma made a laudable 
attempt in this direction. We need to do much more 
along this line. 

Do I think that we can make Calvinists by propa- 
ganda? Of course not. No more than the preacher 
of Christianity can make Christians of his hearers, 
ean we by teaching Calvinism turn men into Calvin- 
ists. Calvinism, like Christianity, is an attitude of 
heart. Only he is a true Calvinist whose heart trusts 
in God and loves God. And it takes God the Holy 
Spirit to make men at heart what they ought to be. 
The Holy Spirit makes Calvinists. 

But, surely, it does not follow that we may be idle. 
God is wont to employ means. Very often God is 


230 As To Being Reformed 


pleased to work through the instrumentality of men. 
God frequently honors men by appointing them his 
colaborers. ‘‘How shall they believe in him of whom 
they have not heard? And how shall they hear with- 
out a preacher?” That Paul said about the preach- 
ing of the Christ. It is applicable also to the promul- 
gation of Calvinism. And if we diligently and pray- 
erfully plant and water, may we not confidently 
expect God to give the increase? 


A Vision 





CHAPTER XVII. 
A VISION 


ND it shall come to pass that the truly Re- 

formed Christians of this continent, scattered 
throughout various denominations, will be gathered 
together into one body: The American Reformed 
Church. 

Amid the sneers of men of little faith, sons of 
Abraham, father of believers, and brethren of Paul, 
apostle of faith, will gird themselves for its estab- 
lishment, enthused by the motto: “Nil desperandum 
Deo duce.” 

And upon the realization of the noble project, the 
members of this church will kneel in humble adora- 
tion and exclaim: ‘‘What hath God wrought!” 

Modern means of conveyance and conversation 
will wonderfully facilitate the intercourse of the in- 
dividual churches, spread though they be over the 
whole continent. 

While at first its growth will be slow because of 
that traditionalism which is common to all men, 
eventually its branches will reach every corner of this 
vast land, and the children of God of Reformed per- 
suasion everywhere will sit in its shade. 

The Confessions of this church will embody all the 
salient truths of the Reformed Standards of former 


234 As To Being Reformed 


centuries, with additions as the Holy Spirit may 
direct and the exigencies of the age require. 


The principle underlying its government in every 
manifestation will be the Kingship of Jesus Christ. 


The tolerance of Christ will be practised in this 
church: the constituent bodies will not trouble, one 
another because of differences due to sectional traits 
or traditions. 


Christian love among its members in such peace 
and joy will distill that the souls of other Christians 
will be filled with a holy jealousy, and even the world 
will be constrained to testify that it must be a good 
Master who has such disciples. 


This church will diligently heed the word of the 
Lord by the mouth of the evangelical prophet: “En- 
large the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth 
the curtains of thine habitations; spare not, lengthen 
thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes: for thou shalt 
break forth on the right hand and on the left: and 
thy seed shall inherit the gentiles, and make the 
desolate cities to be inhabited.” 


The promise will be gloriously fulfilled: “Behold, 
I will lay thy stones with fair colors, and lay thy 
foundations with sapphires, and I will make thy win- 
dows of agates and thy gates of carbuncles, and all 
thy borders of pleasant stones; and all thy children 
shall be taught of Jehovah, and great shall be the 
peace of thy children.” 


As To Being Reformed 235 


Methinks I hear a strain of heavenly music, voices 
of angels, falling on my ear: “Glory to God in the 
highest, and among men peace and salvation, for 
the breech of his people is being healed.” 


Upon its banner these words will be emblazoned 
in letters of gold: “Of him, and through him, and 
unto him are all things; unto whom be glory forever. 
Amen!” 


Thus will be hastened the day when, all things hav- 
ing been subdued unto the Son, “he himself will also 
be subject unto him that put all things under him, 
THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.” 


bile ec Ake 
o yd 4 <4 
2 eae 


Gyr 


ry 


Me 
-] 


(LN pt 
ye, ae 





ibe cote | 
é ae T 
it 


# ri) » 


Wax lig 





